Commons Sitting of 26 April 1934

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill,
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    GREATER LONDON.
    Sir PERCY HARRISasked the Minister of Labour the increase in the number of persons employed in the greater London area during the last five years; and how many of them approximately have come from places outside the area?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): At the end of June, 1933, the estimated number of insured persons aged 16 to 64 in the London division (which corresponds approximately with the greater London area) was 2,398,840, of whom 270,510 were recorded as unemployed; at the end of June, 1928, the number of insured persons was 2,147,530, of whom 108,755 were recorded as unemployed. On this basis, there would appear to have been an increase of nearly 90,000 in the number of insured persons in employment in the London division between June, 1928 and June, 1933. I regret that information is not available as to how many of these had come from places outside the London area. Later statistics as to the numbers insured will not become available until after the annual exchange of books in July of this year, but the number recorded as unemployed in the London division at 19th March, 1934, was 239,150.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a general impression in London that the greater part
    1850
    of the additional people who are employed come from the north of England, Wales and other parts of the country; that the people normally employed in London are very much the same in character and personnel as was the case three or four years ago; and that this is not helping the actual London portion of the unemployed?
    Mr. HUDSON: I hope that the hon. Member will not adopt the attitude that we must do nothing for these other areas.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the fact that those people who come from the North and from Wales are much harder-working people than the people of London?
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Could my hon. Friend give any idea of the number of people who have drifted into London from other areas and have failed to find work?
    Mr. HUDSON: I have said in my original answer that information is not available as to the numbers coming from other areas.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is an impression—it may be wrong—that preference is given by Employment Exchanges, especially in the West of London, to people from the North and West over London-born people?

    SHOREDITCH AND STEPNEY.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of unemployed men registered at the Shoreditch and Stepney Employment Exchanges; and what percentage of unemployment is represented by these figures?
    Mr. HUDSON: At 19th March, 1934, there were 7,030 unemployed men, aged 18 and over, on the registers of the Shoreditch Employment Exchange and 6,600 on the registers of the Stepney Employment Exchange. I am unable to say precisely what percentages of unemployment are represented by these figures, which include all men registered at those two exchanges, irrespective of their place of residence; but it is estimated that the numbers of men resident in the Metropolitan Boroughs of Shoreditch and Stepney who were registered as unemployed at 19th March, represented

    1851
    approximately 17.3 per cent. and 14.4 per cent., respectively, of the total numbers of insured men resident in those areas at July, 1933.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Do not these figures show that there is a very large percentage who are unemployed in the East End of London, while in other parts of Greater London there is a comparatively small percentage of unemployment; and will he bring it to the notice of his officials at the Employment Exchanges that they should try and give to these men in East London at least as much chance of getting jobs as people from outside?
    Mr. HUDSON: That is what obtains at present.

    LONDON DOCKS.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed

    Date.

    Estimated number of insured persons at preceding July.

    Insured persons recorded as unemployed.

    Number.

    Per cent. of estimated numbers insured at preceding July.

    21st March, 1932

    …

    …

    …

    47,140

    12,658

    26·9

    20th March, 1933

    …

    …

    …

    45,510

    13,845

    30·4

    19th March, 1934

    …

    …

    …

    43,860

    9,899

    22·6

    MANCHESTER (ARDWICK DIVISION).
    Captain FULLERasked the Minister of Labour if he will arrange for the separate entry at the Employment Exchanges of persons from the Ardwick Division of Manchester, so that unemployment figures could be readily ascertain-able?
    Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend regrets that, having regard to the heavy expense which would be involved in the collection and compilation of statistics of unemployment classified on the basis of Parliamentary Divisions, he is unable to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Captain FULLER: Could not this be done by administrative action, without any expense whatever? There are 10 Divisions in Manchester; would it not be possible to find out what is the state of unemployment in each of them?
    at the London Docks, including dock labourers and kindred trades, at the last available date, as compared with the same time in the two preceding years; and the percentage of unemployment on the same basis?
    Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT:
    Following is the statement:
    Statistics are not available relating specifically to the London Docks, but the following Table shows, for the London Division together with Tilbury, Grays, Erith, Dartford and Gravesend, the estimated numbers of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, in the classification "Canal, River, Tug, Lighter, Harbour, Dock and Wharf Service," at July, 1931, 1932, and 1933, and the numbers and percentages of such persons recorded as unemployed in March, 1932, 1933 and 1934.
    Mr. HUDSON: The practice is that men register at the Exchanges which are most convenient to them from the point of view of their place of employment, and not their place of residence. It would involve enormous expense to trace the residences of all the men registered at any particular Exchange.

    DISTRESSED AREAS (HALTWHISTLE, NORTHUMBERLAND).
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the desperate economic position of the town of Haltwhistle, Northumberland; and if it is proposed to make inquiries to see what can be done to improve matters?
    Mr. HUDSON: My hon. and gallant Friend has previously drawn attention to the position at Haltwhistle, and I can assure him that it will not be overlooked.

    INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour the amount paid into the Unemployment Fund from the increase of contributions made in October, 1931; will he give each item separately, employers' contribution, employés' contribution, and the Treasury contribution; and will he say what reduction it would mean to the Unemployment Fund per annum if the contributions were lowered to the pre-October, 1931, figures?
    Mr. HUDSON: It is estimated that, from 5th October, 1931, to 31st March, 1934, the increase in contribution income from the increased rates of contributions enacted in October, 1931, amounted to approximately £37,000,000, of which employers contributed £9,850,000, employed persons £14,800,000, and the Exchequer £12,350,000. The particulars asked for in the second part of the question are contained in the reply given to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) on 23rd April, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour (1), whether it is within the terms of the regulations for a determination committee, when assessing the needs of a claimant for transitional benefit who has been intermittently employed, to assess those needs after a period of employment in such a manner as to absorb the balance of the wages earned over his assessed needs;
    (2), whether he is aware that in Aberdeen, when anyone on transitional benefit finds employment for a few weeks and again claims transitional benefit, the public assistance committee is taking into consideration three-quarters of the applicant's wages while at work, and where this proportion exceeds the amount of transitional benefit he had been receiving previous to his finding employment refuses to pay him any benefit until the excess of wages over the rate of transitional benefit is absorbed; and, seeing that this means that for several weeks claimants who have obtained a short period of work have to go without benefit for several weeks, and that such a method of assessment does not hold out any inducement to anyone in receipt of benefit
    1854
    to accept employment as his income while employed is reduced by three-fourths owing to this method, will he say what reply he has sent to the complaints he has received against this rule of the Aberdeen public assistance committee?
    Mr. HUDSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on the 13th July last to a question by him on this subject, in which he stated that he had no reason to believe that authorities do not fully appreciate the importance of not discouraging men from finding employment. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply given to the representations made about the practice of the public assistance committee of Aberdeen.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Has nothing been done since July of last year until now to stop this practice of the Aberdeen Public Assistance Committee?
    Mr. HUDSON: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a letter which was sent to Mr. Hill, of the Boilermakers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders' Society.
    Mr. MACLEAN: As the reply is absolutely unsatisfactory, in view of the long continuance of this practice and the inaction of the Minister of Labour in regard to stopping it, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity on the Motion of the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member will recollect that my right hon. Friend, in his reply of the 13th July, pointed out specifically that the matter was one within the discretion of the local authorities, and not one in which we have any power to issue instructions. My right hon. Friend, therefore, can take no effective action.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary has just given is meant to suggest that I should withdraw my notice to raise this matter on the Adjournment Motion, I must insist upon raising it, because I consider that the Ministry of Labour have the power to stop this practice.

    HEALTH INSURED PERSONS (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
    Mrs. SHAWasked the Minister of Health what it is intended that the posi-

    1855
    tion will be of unemployed persons deprived of their right to medical treatment by the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, 1932, when the Unemployment Bill becomes law?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. John) of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he will now state if the Government is prepared to recommit the Unemployment Bill with respect to Clauses 18 and 37, dealing with the debt to be borne by the Unemployment Fund and the means test, which were not discussed on the Committee stage?
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether, arising out of the operation of the time-table on the Committee stage of the Unemployment Bill, he can now indicate the intentions of the Government regarding the conduct of the further proceedings on that measure?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I shall be obliged if hon. Members will be good enough to await my statement on Business.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the financial clauses of the Unemployment Bill are to take effect; and if he can indicate approximately the date on which the Government will take over from the local authorities in Scotland the financial responsibility for the administration of transitional benefit and the payment of able-bodied relief to the unemployed excluded from standard and transitional benefit?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): It is not yet possible to make any statement as regards the appointed days under Part II of the Unemployment Bill.
    Mr. YOUNGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many local authorities are unable to frame their budgets until they have definite information as to when the Government propose to bring into force
    1856
    Part II of the Unemployment Bill; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not yet possible to make any statement which will enable local authorities to estimate the amount of relief which they will receive in the current year under Part II of the Unemployment Bill, but I do not understand that local authorities generally have been unable to frame their budgets.
    Mr. YOUNG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the circular sent out yesterday to Employment Exchanges stating that the board will take over responsibility on 28th July, it means that the board will actually function on that day, or whether they will simply make a further advance to the public assistance committee to enable them to carry on until a later date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purport of the circular to which he refers. It has reference only to the ratio rule.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will confer with the representatives of the local authorities with regard to the financial results, if the coming into operation of the Bill is delayed longer than is expected, say, after 1st October?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will look into that matter.

  WAGES AND SALARIES (ECONOMY CUTS).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if he has any information as to the extent to which cuts in wages and salaries made during the crisis of the last few years have now been restored in industry?
  Mr. HUDSON: Information is regularly published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" with regard to the changes in rates of wages collectively arranged between organised groups of employers and workpeople, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the current issue, which contains, on page 118, statistics for 1933 and previous years and, on page 142, statistics for the first three months of this year. The information in my possession is insufficient, however, to show to what extent reductions in rates of wages have

  1857
  been made, and restored, by individual employers in unorganised industries; and no statistics of changes in salaries are compiled by my Department.
  Mr. MANDER: May I take it that it is the general desire of the Government that private employers should restore cuts made within the last few years, so far as they can?
  Mr. HUDSON: Obviously, the steps taken by the Government to improve the general condition of industry will tend towards that end. On account of the fall in the cost of living figure, the present rates of wages have a materially greater purchasing value than was the case two years ago.
  Lieut.-Colonel C. MacANDREW: Can my hon. Friend say anything about Scotland?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would the hon. Gentleman use his influence with employers, now that the Government have done away with the cuts for the unemployed, to get them to do likewise for their workpeople?
  Mr. PIKE: Do those statistics include figures relative to local authorities and co-operative societies?
  Mr. HUDSON: I should require notice of that question.
  Mr. MABANE: Is it not a fact that msot private employers did not make any cuts in wages?

  NEW INDUSTRIES (FOREIGN FIRMS).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the wages paid and the number of hours worked by those employed in factories established in this country by foreign firms, with a view to finding out whether those conditions are up to British standards; and whether any lower standards which may prevail in those factories operate unfairly in competition as between articles produced by those firms and similar manufactures produced by British firms?
  Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir, but if the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind, I shall be glad to consider them.
  Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that, if I bring to his notice cases of very low wages paid by these firms, the Ministry of Labour can take action?
  Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir, but I shall be very glad to look into them.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he is not prepared to make inquiries in order to see that these firms maintain a better standard of life for their workpeople?
  Mr. HUDSON: I am not prepared to undertake a roving inquiry all over the country to see if I can find individual cases.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Would my hon. Friend consider the desirability of passing into law the Alien Manufacturers (Licensing) Bill?

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).
  Mr. BERNAYSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many boys under 14 were sentenced to corporal punishment in 1933; and whether he is satisfied with the response by magistrates to the official discouragement of the Home Office of the frequent employment of this form of punishment?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Statistics for 1933 are not yet available. A circular letter about the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 was sent by the Home Office to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in August last, and in this circular it was pointed out that while in the new Act the power to order a child to be whipped is retained, the practice of the most experienced juvenile courts for many years shows that these courts rarely or never need to exercise this power. The question when use shall be made of any form of penalty authorised by law must be one for the discretion of the justices.

  POLICE.

    SPECIAL CONSTABLES (LONG SERVICE BARS).
    Mr. RHYSasked the Home Secretary if he will consider the amendment

    1859
    of the Royal Warrant governing the award of the bar to medals granted to special constables, so that the bar may be granted after the expiration of 19 years' service, and not be governed as at present by the date of the award of the medal?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Under the terms of the existing Royal Warrant, additional Long Service Bars may be awarded to holders of the Special Constabulary Long Service Medal who have continued to serve for a further period of 10 years after the award of the medal. The recommendation of the Chief Officer of Police concerned is necessary before either the medal or the additional Long Service Bar can be awarded. I have no evidence before me that these conditions are inappropriate, but if my hon. Friend will submit particulars indicating reasons for the change suggested, I will be glad to consider the matter.

    SPORTS (INJURED COMPETITORS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Home Secretary whether a member of the Metropolitan police who is injured in connection with sporting events is placed on the sick list as injured on duty; and, in the event of his being returned medically unfit for police duty, under what particular category is he treated under the Police Pensions Acts?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: A member of the Metropolitan Police Force who is injured while taking part in sports is not regarded as having been injured on duty: and if he has to retire following such an injury he is entitled not to a special pension but to an ordinary pension or a gratuity under Section 2 (1) (b) or (d) of the Police Pensions Act, the amount of course depending upon his pay and his length of service at the time of his retirement.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it not a fact that they are expected to take part in these sports as part of their duties and, if that be so, should they not be entitled to ordinary compensation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of men at present on the sick list as a consequence of injuries received or sickness
    1860
    resulting from participation in police sports?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: At the present time 32 members of the Metropolitan Police Force are on the sick list for the reason stated—one sergeant and 31 constables.

    METROPOLITAN AND CITY POLICE ORPHANAGE.
    Major MILNERasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the result of the investigations into the question of continuing or closing the Metropolitan and City Police Orphanage; and whether it is proposed to publish the report to the Police Forces concerned?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that these investigations are still proceeding and no report has yet been made.

    METROPOLITAN CENTRAL CANTEEN.
    Major MILNERasked the Home Secretary whether he will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown regarding the property rights of the Central Canteen Committee of the Metropolitan Police vested in the receiver or the Central Canteen Committee, having regard to the views expressed in the report of March, 1927, by a committee of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) was president and the receiver of the Metropolitan Police a member, that the showrooms and headquarters of the canteen service in the Borough High Street were the private property of the Central Canteen Committee and had no connection whatever with the Police Fund?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. Since December, 1928, the freehold and leasehold property in question has been held not by the receiver or the Central Canteen Committee but by Trustees on behalf of the force generally, and it will continue to be so held.

    MUTUAL TRADING.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary whether there are any regulations of a statutory or other character which would preclude the members of the Metropolitan Police or other forces from establishing a form of mutual trading entirely independent of the police authorities and operated apart from police premises or control?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. I think this would come within the regulation which prohibits members of a police force carrying on any business for gain.
    Mr. McENTEE: Assuming that the proposed trading was not for gain but was in the nature of a co-operative society among the policemen, would that come under the regulations?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, I think it would.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (PETITION).
  Mr. JANNERasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to take any and, if so, what steps in respect of the petition of William Smith relating to workmen's compensation, which petition was printed with the second report from the Committee on Public Petitions?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: It appears from the petition that Smith's case was before the Court in 1931, and that subsequently he made application for a new trial which was refused. I have no power to reopen the matter and do not see that there is any action which I could usefully take.
  Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the matter to be raised in some other way?

  UNDESIRABLES (REPATRIATION).
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Home Secretary what is the practice of his Department with regard to deporting from Great Britain undesirable natives of other States of the British Empire or Commonwealth and repatriating them to such States; and, seeing that many of these States have full power and exercise it in the case of natives of Great Britain, will he take steps to obtain equal powers in regard to this matter with all other parts of the Empire?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Under the existing law there is no power to deport a British subject from the United Kingdom. Such legislation as the hon. Member suggests would involve a change of principle in the policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom which has hitherto been that no restriction should be placed on the entry or residence in the United Kingdom of any British subject.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of undesirables come from some of our Mediterranean possessions and live in London on the wages of sin? Would it not be very much better that they should be deported to their own place instead of victimising English women?

  ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL (CUP FINAL, WEMBLEY).
  Mr. HANNONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the profiteering which is taking place in the sale of tickets to witness the cup final at Wembley; and, as in the present state of the law many cases occur where such profiteering goes unchecked, will he introduce legislation to prohibit any re-sale at increased prices of tickets for any entertainment?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. Whenever there are more people anxious to see an entertainment than there are tickets available, there are no practicable means of preventing any individual who obtains a ticket through the ordinary channels from re-selling his ticket if he wishes to do so to anyone who chooses to buy it.
  Mr. HANNON: Does not my right hon. Friend think this a very undesirable practice?

  PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT (LANCASHIRE).
  Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary the number of persons placed on probation in Lancashire during 1931, 1932, 1933, and up to the latest date in 1934 for which figures are available?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The numbers of persons placed on probation—whether discharged by courts of summary jurisdiction on recognisances with supervision under Section 2 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, or committed for trial and placed on probation with supervision by courts of assize or quarter sessions—by all courts in Lancashire were as follow:

  Year 1931

  2,324

  Year 1932

  2,553

  Year 1933

  2,570

  No figures are yet available for the year 1934.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the increase is due to the effects of prolonged unemployment?
  Mr. MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary the number of probation officers, under the supervision of his Department, in Lancashire, specifying the number of full-time appointments and the number of men and women?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: According to the latest information available, there are in Lancashire as a whole, 77 probation officers: 22 of the 49 men and eight of the 28 women are full-time officers.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider this work sufficiently important to increase the number of full-time officers?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I think the numbers are sufficient, though the proper proportions will have to be reviewed from time to time.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Is the Home Office discouraging full-time employment?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, I do not think it is our object to do that.
  Mr. MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary the number of probation officers in Lancashire whose salaries are wholly, or partly, paid by a religious organisation?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: There are 30 full-time officers; none has his or her salary wholly paid by a religious organisation, and nine have one-third of their salaries so paid. I regret that similar information about the 47 part-time officers is not available.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would make for better work if no religious organisations were to pay any part of the salaries?

  SUMMER TIME.
  Mr. LECKIEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that 24 weeks only are included in summer time this year as compared with 26 last year; and if he will take steps to ensure, by legislation if necessary, that 26 weeks are included next year and in future years,
  1864
  in view of the advantages of the longer period?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The method of fixing the period of summer time was settled by Parliament after full consideration of the interests involved, and I am not prepared to introduce a Bill to amend the existing law.

  "DRAKE ESTATE."
  Major PROCTERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that assignments of interests in the so-called Drake estate are still taking place; whether he can give any further information with regard to the perpetration of frauds based on the supposed existence of an unsettled or unappropriated estate formerly belonging to Sir Francis Drake; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to protect the public from fraudulent misrepresentations in connection therewith?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: So far as His Majesty's Government is aware, there is no such estate in this country. Last year I became aware that an American subject was holding himself out as carrying on a scheme for the recovery of the "Drake estate" and, as I informed the House at the time, I decided to deport him from this country. I am not aware of any other recent operations of this kind in England, but I shall be glad to consider any information bearing on the matter.
  Major PROCTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over £500,000 has been raised from American and English citizens on this the English equivalent of the Spanish swindle and, where the good name of our country is involved, will he do his best to stop this American racket?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I thought I had taken the most effective means.

  HEATH AND FOREST FIRES.
  Dr. HOWITTasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the continued drought and the danger to life and property which is likely to arise as the season advances by reason of heath and forest fires, he will circularise local authorities recommending them to organise prevention of and protection from such fires in districts commonly subject to them?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Hutchison) on the 19th instant. The responsibility for fire precautions rests primarily with the local authorities, and the Home Office has no special powers in this matter, but I shall be glad to consider, in consultation with other Departments, whether any action can usefully be taken on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Dr. HOWITT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now 21 years since the Joint Select Committee unanimously recommended that precautions should be taken to prevent these heath fires? Does he not think that it is time action should be taken?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have said in answer to the question that I am looking into the matter and will confer with the other Departments concerned.

  PENTONVILLE PRISON.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary why the Government refused to sell Pentonville Prison to the London County Council, who were going to pull the prison down as they desired the site to erect houses and flats to alleviate the problem of overcrowding in Finsbury?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The possibility of selling Pentonville Prison in order that the site may be available for housing purposes has often been considered during the last few years. It would, however, be necessary as a preliminary step to find accommodation elsewhere for the large number of prisoners now sent to Pentonville, and though several possibilities have been considered no satisfactory solution of this problem has yet been discovered.

  PROPOSED GERMAN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CENTRE.
  Mr. DOBBIEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a proposal to take over premises in London as a centre for the German Nazi organisation; and whether, before any such proposal is sanctioned, close inquiry will be made as to its purpose and as to the necessity, if any, for the estab-
  1866
  lishment of a centre in this country for a foreign political organisation?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that there is a project for the formation of a German social and political centre in London to take the place of existing individual organisations. I am not aware of anything calling for any action on my part.

  EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING CHILDREN).
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what increase occurred in the number of school children leaving at Christmas, 1933, as compared with Christmas, 1932; and what effect has been produced in respect of the number who failed to secure employment?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend regrets that he has no figures which would enable him to answer the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. Friend say when his Department will be in a position to supply information on this very important matter?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The figures obtainable are in respect of each year ending 31st March. The returns for the 31st March last will probably be completed and made up by the early autumn.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Having regard to the very large increase in the number of children leaving school, is not some special effort being made to investigate the situation?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: These returns are very voluminous, and they have to be received from the local education authorities and prepared by ourselves.

  RATING ASSESSMENTS.
  Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many ratepayers whose assessments have been raised by the rating authority get their first intimation of the fact when a demand is made for payment of rates upon this increased assessment; and if be will consider the advisability of intro-

  1867
  ducing legislation to require rating authorities to serve a notice upon the ratepayers concerned of their intention to increase the assessment of their properties?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The point will receive consideration in connection with any legislation to amend the Rating and Valuation Acts. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that the requirement to serve individual notices in connection with a general revaluation was specifically repealed by the Act of 1928 on grounds of economy in view of the fact that the principal Act contains provisions which enable ratepayers to have their assessments reviewed at any time and that any reduction of assessment so obtained has retrospective effect.
  Mr. LEWIS: Would it be possible to arrange, on the last demand note for rates at the end of each quinquennial period, that a notice should either be printed on the demand note or sent with it, to the effect that the new valuation list is in course of preparation?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I will make a note of the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. THORNE: Is there any general rule given to the valuation committees for the purpose of assessing property?

  TRANSPORT.

    PETROL AND OIL FUMES.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Health whether any form of inquiry is being made by his Department as to the effects on the general health of motor transport drivers and the general public from the inhaling of petrol and oil fumes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I have been asked to reply; I do not think I can add anything to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee) on 11th December. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this reply.

    ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (HOURS REGULATIONS).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Transport if he has received a report from his inspectors in connection with
    1868
    the breach of the hours regulations under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that was committed by the Gresham Motor Transport Company, Limited, of High Street, Homerton, for having worked one of their employés for more than 11 hours continuously in 24 and without allowing him 10 hours consecutive rest; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have no information on this subject beyond that contained in a recent statement in the Press to the effect that the company was convicted and fined £40 for offences against Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

    FOOTPATHS.
    Colonel GOODMANasked the Minister of Transport, whether his attention has been called to the results of an investigation conducted by the Automobile Association into the provision of footpath accommodation beside main roads, showing particularly in the western counties and in Sussex a neglect of such accommodation for pedestrians; and whether, for their greater safety, he will cause representations to be made to the responsible authorities with a view to securing a more adequate provision of footpaths besides such class of roads in these areas?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have seen the recent particulars to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and, being aware of the need for footpaths in various parts of the country my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport laid stress on the importance of adequate provision for pedestrians in a circular addressed to highway authorities in February last. I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of this circular.
    Sir GIFFORD FOX: Is the Parliamentary Secretary able to say to what extent he is prepared to make grants from the Road Fund for the express purpose mentioned in this question?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: These are not matters which I can discuss in detail here, but we are prepared to help in that respect.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Would my hon. and gallant Friend use his influence with the pedestrians, so that when these footpaths are provided pedestrians will utilise them?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We want to make it possible for pedestrians to have footpaths on which they will be willing to walk.

    BRIDGES.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Minister of Transport if he has had any representations from structural engineers with respect to the need for strengthening the many weak bridges in the country; and whether, in view of the serious depression in the steel industry, his Department will take any action in support of such representations?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have received such representations and I had previously urged, and am continuing to urge, highway authorities to take advantage of the grants offered from the Road Fund for the strengthening and reconstruction of weak bridges.

  MENTAL HOSPITAL, MACCLESFIELD (ATTENDANT'S DEATH).
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of John Edward Knott, who served under the Macclesfield visiting committee as an attendant for over 30 years, was killed by a patient a few weeks before the date of his retirement, and whose widow has been granted a pension of 15s. per week instead of the £2 per week to which Knott would have been entitled had he not met with death; and whether, in view of the long service rendered by Knott and the circumstances of his death, he will make representations to the Macclesfield visiting committee as to the desirability of reconsidering the case and awarding the full pension to which Knott would have been entitled?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. I will make inquiries into the case, but if the allowance referred to was granted in the exercise of the discretion vested in the visiting committee of the asylum by Section 4 (b) of the Asylum Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, the matter does not appear to be one in which I could intervene in the manner suggested.
  Mr. SMITH: After the right hon. Gentleman has made his inquiries, will he let me know the result?
  Sir H. YOUNG

  HOUSING.

    RENTS.
    Mr. JOELasked the Minister of Health the number of councils which, at the present time, are considering schemes for the equalisation of rents under which it is proposed to pool the subsidies and to see that the poorest people get the full benefit and the tenants who can afford it pay economic rents?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Local authorities are not required to report action of this kind, or their consideration of its possibility, to me, but under the existing law a general pooling of the subsidies given under two or more separate Acts is not permissible.
    Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of these local authorities are pooling a part of the subsidy for the relief of poor tenants, and that the Leeds Corporation is the only municipality which is pooling the whole subsidy, and requiring tenants who can afford it to pay the full economic rents as recommended by his own circular.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am certainly aware that the development in Leeds goes very much further than anywhere else.
    Mr. MABANE: Is it not a fact that in Leeds hundreds of corporation houses are being vacated and are empty?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware that the experiment being conducted in Leeds is not wholly without friction?
    Major MILNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in point of fact it is a great success, and that there is a surplus in the rent pool of some thousands of pounds?

    BUILDING MATERIALS (BATHS).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Health if he has now received the report of the committee on the prices of building materials with regard to the price of baths?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. The report will be issued in the course of the next few days.

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Health which public assist-

  1871
  ance authorities have taken steps to raise their scales of relief for children to 3s. per head since February of this year?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware that this increase has been made, in the period suggested, by the county borough councils of Bolton, Rochdale and Salford. I should, however, explain that there is no obligation on public assistance authorities to frame a scale of relief or to report any scale so framed to me, and that there has never been any rule that the relief granted to the head of a family in respect of a child should be fixed at any particular figure.

  WIDOWS', ORPHANS', AND OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health the number of persons receiving old age pensions under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts and under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924; and the total number of pensioners of both types who were also in receipt of indoor or outdoor poor relief?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The total number of such old age pensioners in England and Wales on the 31st December, 1933, was 2,042,611, of whom 169,632 were in receipt of poor relief.
  Mr. JOELasked the Minister of Health the number of widows whose pensions have been terminated in the last 12 months owing to their youngest child having reached the age of 16; whether he is aware that the termination of these pensions has caused and causes material hardship; and whether he will set on foot an inquiry into the working of this aspect of insurance?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The total number of widows in England whose pensions under the Act of 1925 ceased during 1933 because their youngest child attained 16 was 5,933, but 1,813 of these widows, being over the age of 55, immediately became entitled to pensions under the Act of 1929. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I would point out that the provision which terminates widows' pensions on the youngest child reaching the age of 16 applies only to those cases in which the pensions are
  1872
  provided entirely at the cost of the Exchequer and no part is derived from contributions paid under the insurance scheme.
  Mr. JOELasked the Minister of Health how many widows whose pensions have terminated owing to their youngest child attaining the age of 16 re-apply for a widow's pension at the age of 55; and whether he is convinced that the knowledge that such pensions are re-issuable in the circumstances is generally known to the potential beneficiaries?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that I am not in a position to furnish the information asked for in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative, and I am letting my hon. Friend have a copy of a notice which is sent to all such pensioners prior to the termination of their pensions.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not my right hon. Friend think that 16 is too young an age, seeing that children are very helpless when they come from school under the present system of education?
  Mr. YOUNGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that persons in receipt of old age pensions are now being disqualified from receipt of their payments on admission to the infirm wards of public assistance institutions; and whether he will be prepared to introduce legislation to provide against this?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Brigadier-General Nation), on the 19th April, of which I am sending him a copy.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JUVENILES).
  Mr. ROSS TAYLORasked the Minister of Health if he is prepared to give effect to the proposal that the National Health Insurance Act should be so amended as to bring within its scope all persons who, on leaving school, enter into insurable employment between the ages of 14 and 16 years?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar

  1873
  question asked by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) on the 19th April last.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    HEAVY OILS DUTY.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Customs revenue and Excise revenue obtained in the financial year 1933–34 from the duties on heavy hydrocarbon oils, specifying separately the amount obtained in respect of kerosene, lubricating oil, gas oil, and fuel oil?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer.
    The amounts of Customs revenue and Excise revenue obtained from the duties on heavy hydrocarbon oils during the financial year 1933–34 were approximately as follow:

    £

    Customs revenue

    2,212,000

    Excise revenue

    588,000

    The Customs duty is levied at the uniform rate of 1d. per gallon on all heavy hydrocarbon oils, and no statutory definitions of the various descriptions specified in the question exist or are necessary for revenue purposes. According, however, to the trade descriptions furnished by importers and refiners on Customs entries and home consumption warrants, the Customs revenue from these specified descriptions was approximately as follows:

    £

    Lamp oil (kerosene)

    674,000

    Lubricating oil

    368,000

    Gas oil

    297,000

    Fuel oil

    844,000

    No similar information exists in respect of the temporary Excise duty imposed at the uniform rate of 1d. per gallon on stocks of heavy petroleum oils held on 25th April, 1933.

    REVENUE OFFICERS, IRELAND.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many additional revenue officers have been posted upon the frontier between Ulster and the Irish Free State since the imposition of special duties on Irish Free
    1874
    State produce entering Great Britain; and whether he is satisfied that their number is now sufficient to prevent smuggling over this particular border?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The number of officials employed on Customs work on the land boundary has been increased by 67 since the imposition of special duties under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932. I am satisfied that all possible steps have been taken, and will be taken as experience suggests, for the prevention of smuggling.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the wholesale smuggling is still going on over the border with great suffering to the Irish farmers and loss of revenue, and will he get into touch with the authorities?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend, and I hope that my answer covers the point.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can my hon. Friend say whether the special steps referred to in his reply are those being taken by the cattle while illegally coming across the frontier?

    REMISSIONS AND CLAIMS ABANDONED.
    Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total sum for remissions, composition settlements, and claims abandoned by the Board of Inland Revenue for the year ended the last Saturday in October, 1933?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I regret that this information is not available. As my hon. Friend is aware, certain information for the year to October, 1932, is to be found in the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Revenue Departments Appropriation Accounts for the year 1932. These accounts are examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and details of the type to which my hon. Friend refers are only published in so far as the Comptroller and Auditor-General thinks fit to refer to them in his reports or they may occur in the evidence taken by the Public Accounts Committee.

  AGRICULTURE.

    DRIED BEET PULP.
    Mr. LEWISasked the Minister of Agriculture at what price dried beet

    1875
    pulp is being offered by the sugar-beet factories to dealers for sale in this country, and at what price it is being offered for sale abroad?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply. I regret that the information asked for is not available. There is no market quotation for pulp sold to dealers either at home or abroad.
    Mr. LEWIS: If I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a case in which a beet sugar factory recently offered to merchants sugar-beet pulp at a price for export 33 per cent. higher than the price for home consumption, will he look into the matter?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will gladly pass it on to my right hon. Friend, but I would point out that only three per cent. of beet pulp produced in this country is exported.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not a shipping discount of 33 per cent. given on practically all kinds of export?

    SCOTTISH MILK (ENGLISH SALES).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any agreement exists between the English and Aberdeen Milk Marketing Boards covering the sale of sweet milk from Aberdeenshire farms to distributors in England, and the conditions covering such transactions?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that no agreement has been made between the Milk Marketing Board and the Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Board of the nature indicated.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Agriculture if any agreement exists between the English and Scottish milk marketing boards covering the sale of sweet milk from Scottish farms to distributors in England, and the conditions covering such transactions?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that the terms of an agreement dealing with the sale of Scottish milk in England are at present under consideration by the English and Scottish Milk Marketing Boards, but that no formal agreement has yet been made.
    Mr. LEONARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that representations are made to the boards concerned with a view to having a more comprehensive and inclusive set of agreements.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will convey the hon. Member's question to the Department.

    EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there are, approximately, 500,000 persons in England and Wales, and 50,000 in Scotland, who are connected with the egg-producing industry, the livelihood of many of whom is in jeopardy on account of the increase in imports of foreign eggs to this country; and whether he will consider the matter of taking further steps to restrict such imports as one of urgency, pending the receipt by him of the report of the reorganisation committee?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The importance of the poultry industry in Great Britain is fully appreciated by my fight hon. Friend. Pending the receipt of the Reorganisation Commission's report, it is not proposed to take further steps to regulate imports of eggs.
    Sir J. LAMB: May I ask whether steps are being taken to get an interim report on eggs and poultry?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must have notice of that question.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been an exceptional importation of eggs?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, and I think the fact is that in recent weeks there has been a fall.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that while we are waiting for the report poultry keepers have to feed their hens?
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report will be ready?
    Sir R. GOWERasked the Minister of Agriculture to which foreign Governments he sent his request that they should limit their exports of eggs to this market as from 15th March; if replies have been received from any such Gov-

    1877
    ernments or from the Government of the Irish Free State, respectively, to such request, and to what effect; and if there has been any reduction in imports as from 15th March, and to what extent?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: An invitation to limit exports of eggs to the United Kingdom market from 15th March to 14th September was extended to all foreign countries whose interest in the United Kingdom egg market during that period is material. Assurances of co-operation have been received from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Hungary and Japan, and in regard to supplies from China. A similar assurance has been received from the Irish Free State. Further representations are being made to the Governments of those countries which have not yet agreed. Imports from all the important suppliers of eggs to the United Kingdom have been appreciably less since the 15th March than in the corresponding period last year. Total recorded imports from all sources into the principal ports in Great Britain were about 929,000 great hundreds in the four weeks ended 14th April as compared with 1,411,000 great hundreds in same weeks in 1933, a decrease of 34 per cent.
    Major COLFOX: Can my right hon. Friend say which of the foreign countries concerned have an export bounty on eggs so as to reduce the price in this country below the price in their own country?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. MANDER: The Irish Free State is mentioned. Do I understand that an invitation was extended to the British Dominions or to some of them in this matter?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware that the British Dominions are large importers of eggs into this country at this time.

    POULTRY INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION).
    Sir R. GOWERasked the Minister of Agriculture when it is anticipated that the report of the commission to consider the reorganisation of the poultry industry will be received by him; and if he will represent to the commission the desirability of expediting the preparation and delivery of such report to him?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend does not expect to receive the
    1878
    Report of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs and Poultry for some months. The commission have an important and difficult task and he is satisfied that they appreciate the need to make as rapid progress as is possible.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive this report; and will he consider asking for an interim report on eggs only?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That point has been raised in a previous supplementary question, and I will convey it to my right hon. Friend.

    CATTLE MARKET, BANBURY.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received any report from the Banbury market inspector in connection with the conditions prevailing in the cattle market at Banbury; whether he has any information on the matters reported on by one of the inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the effect that the market is being used as a dumping ground for diseased and useless cattle; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend has not received any such report from the Banbury market inspector, who is an official of the local authority. The Department has been informed that the majority of the consignment of cattle concerned in the recent proceedings at the West Ham Police Court at which, it is reported, an inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals criticised the condition of Banbury market, were not exposed in either of the two Banbury markets but passed through the railway loading docks. All cattle offered for sale at these markets are inspected by the veterinary inspector of the local authority.

    FOREIGN PRODUCE (IMPORTATION).
    Captain FULLERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as every diminution in our adverse visible balance of trade means a reduction in interest payments on investments abroad due to us, he will state to what extent this factor is preventing the further exclusion of foreign agricultural produce

    1879
    now entering this country to the detriment of our own agriculture and that of the Dominions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): As I am unable to accept the premiss advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend, it is not possible for me to suggest an answer to his question.
    Captain FULLER: Would the hon. Gentleman state where the payments on our overseas investments are to be found, if not in the adverse visible trade balance?
    Dr. BURGIN: That is quite another point. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will have a word with me afterwards.

    IMPORTED PORK.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of chilled and frozen pork from foreign countries have increased from 28,997 cwts. in the first three months of 1932 to 135,746 cwts. in the first three months of 1934; and, as the bulk of this pork is imported from countries with which we have not made a recent trade agreement, will be take steps to denounce with those countries any treaties containing the most-favoured-nation clause, so that this importation can be reduced by duties or quotas?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the figures quoted by my hon. Friend. The general question of United Kingdom policy in regard to pork will have to be considered before taking into account the subsidiary question of any treaty engagements which may affect this matter.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: As the most-favoured-nation aspect is being considered, what are they going to do about pork?

    CANNED BEEF (IMPORTS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of canned beef increased from 106,375 cwts. in the first three months of 1932 to 203,968 cwts. in the corresponding period of 1934; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this growing
    1880
    competition to the products of our livestock industry?
    Dr. BURGIN: Steps are being taken by agreement with importers to stabilise the imports in 1934 of canned beef, other than tongues, at a figure not higher than that of corresponding imports in 1933.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: As the imports in 1933 were far too large, can my hon. Friend say why they are to be stabilised at that figure?
    Dr. BURGIN: The imports in the first quarter of 1933 were £154,779.

  SCOTLAND.

    NECESSITOUS CHILDREN (HOLIDAYS).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that, according to the report of the Glasgow Necessitous Children's Holiday Camp Fund, there are 67,000 children in Glasgow whose parents are too poor to afford a holiday this year; and will he consider the advisability of the Department of Education making a grant to the West of Scotland and other industrial areas to provide holidays for necessitous children during the summer?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am informed that there is no provision in the Education (Scotland) Acts that would enable the Scottish Education Department to make a grant for the purpose referred to in the question.

    MILK (PRICES AND QUALITY).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the report from the Scottish Consumers' Committee regarding its investigations into the protests against the decision of the Scottish Milk Board to charge winter prices for summer supplies, and, if so, what action he intends to take to secure a reduction in prices as requested by the consumers; and if he is aware that the co-operative societies estimate the increased prices will cost Scottish consumers £1,300,000 extra in the milk board area?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Yes, Sir. The report made by the Con-

    1881
    sumers' Committee has been referred to the Committee of Investigation for Scotland.
    Mr. LEONARD: May I ask if the report was unanimous, and, if so, was it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to come to a decision himself and so save the taxpayers a large sum of money?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The report has been submitted to the Committee of Investigation, and I do not think it is advisable at this stage to make any statement on the point.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was asked only on Tuesday to put this question down, and told that I should get a full reply?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am under the impression that I have given a definite answer to the hon. Member. He asked me whether I had considered the report and what action I proposed to take. The answer was that I have considered the report and submitted it to the Committee of Investigation.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to know what the right hon. Gentleman has submitted to the Committee of Investigation? I have no means of getting at the committee.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have submitted the report of the Consumers Committee to the Committee of Investigation, and until I have received their report I can make no statement on the subject.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inspectors are employed by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board to ensure that their minimum butter fat content standard of 3.4 per cent. is complied with; what laboratory equipment is at the board's disposal; and what are the qualifications of those applying the tests?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The administration of the scheme in respect of the matters referred to is entirely the concern of the board and I have no information regarding their staffing and other arrangements.
    Mr. LEONARD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it necessary that a board with such powers should have adequate machinery at its disposal to test the quality of the milk, in view of the fact that there have been more
    1882
    protests as regards quality during the lifetime of the present Government than in the previous 10 years?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have no control over the working of the board, and, so far as the information which reaches me is concerned, it does not coincide with the last statement of the hon. Member.

    DERELICT AREAS (INVESTIGATOR).
    Mr. GUY (for Mr. MILNE)asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to give the name of the Scottish investigator into the problem of the derelict areas?
    Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend is glad to say that Sir Arthur Rose has agreed to undertake this investigation in Scotland.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
  Mr. MANDERasked the hon. and gallant Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he will state, respectively, the amount spent by Members of the House and by the public on the purchase of food and drink in that part of the Palace of Westminster under his control in 1933?
  Sir JOHN GANZONI: It is regretted that figures showing the differentiation asked for by the hon. Member are not available; but the only place to which the public have access as customers is the Strangers' Refreshment Room on the Committee Rooms corridor, and there £231 2s. 2d. was taken for food in 1933 and £315 7s. 7d. for drinks, both these amounts coming from Members as well as the public.
  Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Member figures before him showing the profit on food and on drink?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.
  Sir J. GANZONI: I must have notice of that question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    JAPANESE DOORS.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that oak-panelled doors, packed in cases of six doors in each case, are being

    1883
    imported from Japan and landed at London docks at a price of 48s. per case; and whether he is taking any action to prevent the British firms who are importing these doors from continuing to do so?
    Dr. BURGIN: No imports of doors consigned from Japan were recorded during the first three months of this year. There are no statutory powers under which imports of such doors could be prohibited. Any question of an increase in the duty payable on doors is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the first instance, and an application for such an increase is at present before the Committee.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and his colleagues have consistently opposed all efforts made by the Government for the protection of British industry?

    INDO-JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indo-Japanese trade agreement which has been concluded between representatives of the Indian and Japanese Governments will result in India not being restricted in the grant of trade preferences to Empire countries under the scheme of most-favoured-nation treatment accorded to Japan in the convention and protocol which embodies the trade agreement; and if the full text of the agreement will be made available to Members of the House of Commons?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member need have no anxiety on this score. The agreement confers most-favoured-nation rights on Japan in respect of import duties as against other foreign countries, but the Government of India have throughout made it clear to the Japanese Government that, in accordance with their undertaking at Ottawa, nothing in this agreement will be allowed to interfere with any mutual preferences which Governments of the Commonwealth might decide to accord to each other. The text of the agreement will certainly be made available in due course.
    Mr. HANNON: Can my hon. Friend say when it will be made available?
    Mr. BUTLER: I am not in a position to say at the moment, but I will let my hon. Friend know.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    COST OF PRODUCTION.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines whether the introduction of machinery into the coal mines has resulted in a decrease in the costs of production; and whether he can give what were the costs of production other than wages for March, 1924, and March, 1934?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The introduction of machinery has no doubt resulted in some cases in a decrease in the total cost per unit of production, although it is impracticable to say to what extent. But there are many instances in which an increase in mechanisation has not brought a reduction in costs. In fact, the success or otherwise of mechanisation appears to depend almost entirely upon the particular set of conditions obtaining at each individual mine, and it is difficult to draw any general conclusions. The costs of production, other than wages, during the December quarter, 1933, the latest period for which particulars are available, were 4s. 3d. per ton disposable commercially, as compared with 5s. 3½d. during the December quarter, 1923, and 5s. 3d. during the March quarter, 1924. In the last 10 years the general price level has, of course, fallen considerably.
    Mr. MARTIN: Is it not a fact that the output per man has increased in the last 10 years? Could it not therefore be said that the cost of production has decreased?
    Mr. BROWN: It would not be right to draw a general conclusion by isolating one factor of that kind.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the cost of production has gone down?
    Mr. BROWN: I would ask the hon. Member to study the answer. It is very carefully drawn.

    OVERTIME, LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Secretary for Mines if the inquiry into the

    1885
    working of overtime in Lancashire is Hearing completion; can he state the nature of the reports he has received; and whether the inquiry is to be proceeded with in any, or all, of the other mining districts?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is Yes. With regard to the second and third parts, I am afraid that I cannot make any statement on the subject until I have had an opportunity of considering the whole of the reports.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Does that mean that the inspectors in Lancashire, when they have finished their work there, have to await consideration of their report before any further action is taken by the Department?
    Mr. BROWN: I expect their inquiries will be finished between a fortnight and three weeks hence.
    Mr. GRAHAM: But what will happen after that?
    Mr. BROWN: When I get the reports I shall consider them, and I shall be glad then to answer any question put to me upon them.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that from every colliery district in Britain complaints of the same kind as have been inquired into in Lancashire have been received by the Department? In these circumstances is the Department prepared to proceed further in the matter?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member and the House know quite well that it is for that reason that we are making this investigation, but we want to see just how far throughout this coalfield the impression that has been given by questions and answers and the cases raised is really justifiable, and whether or not, arising out of the facts, a wider investigation would be justified.

    ROSEHALL COLLIERY, COATBRIDGE.
    Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Secretary for Mines whether any inquiry has been made into breaches of the Mines Act with respect to Sunday labour and overtime working at Rosehall Colliery, Coatbridge; and whether any improvement has been made?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is Yes; though I do not quite understand what the hon. Member has in mind when he refers to breaches of the Act in respect of Sunday labour; With regard to the question of overtime working, inquiries were made on several occasions in March and April, and there does not appear to be any serious cause for complaint.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Does that mean that almost everyone in that particular locality must be unable to distinguish between an ordinary person and a man going to or from his work on Sunday afternoon?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Minister of Pensions if, in view of the improved condition of the national finance, the Government will grant more generous consideration to applicants for disability pensions and treatment?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I think the House will agree that there is no ground for my hon. Friend's suggestion that war pensioners have been ungenerously treated in this country. In spite of the recent severe depression which has necessitated reductions of public expenditure in most directions, no cuts whatever have been made in our war pensions and allowances, nor have the principles of our war pensions administration been allowed to be affected in any way; whereas in practically every other country which took part in the Great War, adverse changes have recently been made both in the rates of war pensions and in the practice of pensions administration.
  Mr. SIMMONDS: Arising out of that reply, is it not a fact that very frequently the medical testimony is conflicting, and could not the Minister agree to utilise the discretion that has been placed in his hands in order to ameliorate the condition of some of these people?
  Major TRYON: I am not prepared to define my hon. Friend's exact view of what constitututes "very frequently," but in the last two and a-half years of his Membership of the House he has sent me only four cases bearing upon this

  1887
  question, and I do not think the particulars of those cases bear out his comment on the Ministry.

  BRITISH ARMY (REMOUNTS).
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many officers are employed purchasing remounts for the War Office; what are the areas to which such officers are allocated; how many are allocated to Northern Ireland; and what steps will be taken during the coming financial year to ensure that, if possible, all purchases shall be made as far as possible within Great Britain?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Four such officers are employed, two in the area comprising Wales and the southern part of England and two in the remainder of the country. Two of the four officers also purchase in Northern Ireland. With regard to the second part of the question, the policy of purchasing as many remounts as possible in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be continued.
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number and value of Army remounts purchased from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Irish Free State respectively, during the first quarter of 1934; and how such figures compare with the similar period in 1933?
  Mr. COOPER: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:

  —

  First Quarter of 1933.

  First Quarter of 1934.

  Number.

  Value.

  Number.

  Value.

  £

  £

  England and Wales.

  63

  4,447

  30

  2,270

  Scotland

  1

  100

  1

  100

  Northern Ireland.

  18

  1,150

  12

  730

  Irish Free State.

  Nil

  —

  Nil

  —

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    BUILDINGS AND FURNITURE (CONTRIBUTONS).
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much of the total amount spent on the buildings and furniture of the League of Nations at Geneva has been contributed, respectively, by each of the nations who joined the League; and the nations who have withdrawn from the League?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): The information is being obtained from Geneva, and, so soon as it has been received, I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

    MANCHURIA (POSTAL ACCOUNTS).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the advisory committee, appointed by the Assembly resolution of the League of Nations of 24th February, 1933, has yet considered methods which the British Post Office and other post offices should follow in settling postal accounts with the Manchukuo authorities; whether any reply has been received from the Secretary-General of the League; and, if so, what recommendation has been made?
    Mr. EDEN: No recommendations have yet been made regarding the question raised by my hon. Friend, but the advisory committee appointed to consider it will meet at Geneva on the 14th May.
    Mr. BURNETT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this inquiry is still proceeding or whether this committee has, practically speaking, died a natural death?
    Mr. EDEN: I have said that the committee is to meet in a fortnight's time, which shows that it is still alive.

  JAPAN (NAVAL AND AIR STRENGTH).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information with regard to proposals by Japan to claim naval equality on the expiry of the Treaty of London, and to double her Air Force during the next three years?
  Mr. EDEN: I have seen statements in the Press regarding the proposals mentioned by the hon. Member, but I have received no official confirmation of them.
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that the statement regarding naval policy was made in an interview by the Japanese Ambassador in Berlin, will the hon. Gentleman not make inquiries in regard to this very important question?
  Mr. EDEN: I have said that I have received no official information, but the hon. Member will appreciate that these matters are kept under close observation.
  Mr. MANDER: Do the Government intend to take the general attitude of Japan lying down?
  Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member's assumption is wholly misleading.
  Commander MARSDEN: Is it not a fact that Japan cannot claim equality while the Washington Agreement is still in force?

  JAPAN AND CHINA.
  Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokio, with reference to the recent statement of the Japanese Government, to obtain from that Government particulars of any activities of British nationals or of His Majesty's Government, whether jointly with other nationals or other Governments or individually, which they allege to be directed to the supplying of China with war aeroplanes or with aerodromes, the detailing of military instructors or military advisers to China, or the contracting of any loan to provide funds for political uses?
  Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Sir C. Cayzer) on 23rd April, none of the dangers to peace in the Far East to which the spokesman of the Japanese Foreign Office drew attention in his statement to the Japanese Press of 18th April, are to be apprehended from any policy of His Majesty's Government, who aim at avoiding them.
  Mr. THORNE: Have the Government come to any conclusion as to the ultimate aim and objects of Japan?

  INSTITUTIONS (MILK CONTRACTS).
  Lieutenant-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Home Secretary whether the contracts of the institutions under his control require the purchase of certified, grade A, or ordinary standard milk?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: As regards schools approved under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, some provide themselves with milk from their own farms; the others purchase ordinary standard milk. As regards prisons and Borstal Institutions, milk contracts require the supply of fresh genuine whole milk, the conditions being substantially the same as those laid down by the Milk Marketing Board. Certified and Grade A milk is not used.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week and also what Orders it is proposed to take to-day?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-day we propose to take the first five Orders. In addition to the first four Orders which concern the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, we shall proceed with the Report and Third Reading of the County Courts (Amendment) Bill and the Motion to approve of the Bacon (Import Regulation) Order.
Before referring to the business for next week, may I say that the Government have given most careful consideration to the representations which have been made and have recommitted the Unemployment Bill in respect of the Clause relating to Treasury advances to the Unemployment Fund. One day will be given for the consideration of the recommitted Clause, and on that day it is also proposed to pass the time-table Motion for the concluding stages of the Bill. Five days will be given for the Report stage and one day for the Third Reading. Conversations are now taking place through the usual channels in order to draw up a time-table for the Report stage in the most convenient form for the

1891
House as a whole. I thought it would be convenient to make that announcement now.
As regards the business for next week it will be as follows:
Monday: Water Supplies (Exceptional Shortage Orders) Bill, Report and Third Reading; Shops Bill [Lords], Second Reading.
Tuesday: Consideration of a Timetable Motion for the concluding stages of the Unemployment Bill to be followed by the consideration of the recommitted Clause.
Wednesday and Thursday: Unemployment Bill, Report stage.
Friday will be the last of the Fridays set apart this Session for Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister does not propose to recommit Clause 37 of the Unemployment Bill which deals with the means test? We had no chance of discussing the means test in Committee, and it is far more important than the Financial Clauses. If this Clause is not recommitted, we shall have no chance of discussing the matter or of taking a Division on the question of whether the House wants the means test to be continued or not.
Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Before the Prime Minister answers that question, may I ask him to consider whether it would not be possible, instead of allotting five days to the Report stage to devote one of those days to taking Clause 37 in Committee? As has been pointed out, this is a matter of very great importance.
The PRIME MINISTER: We have carefully considered and studied the Debates in Committee and the time taken in the discussion of the various Clauses. Clause 18 is the only one which we feel justified in recommitting, and that decision, in the ordinary way, has met with approval.
Mr. BATEY: Will the Prime Minister not give further consideration to the matter seeing that we have had no chance of discussing this matter in Committee,
1892
and it has never been touched at all. The House ought to have an opportunity of discussing the means test.
Mr. MANDER: I understood the Prime Minister to say that the Government had recommitted the Bill in respect of Clause 18. Surely the Government have no power to do that. Is it not for the House of Commons to do so?

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Fielding Reginald West, esquire, for the Borough of Hammersmith (North Division).
BILLS REPORTED.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next.

  CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN WATERWORKS BILL [Lords],
  WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Ian Macpherson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Assessor of Public Undertakings (Scotland) Bill [Lords]).
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the South Downs Preservation [Lords], Petition for

1893
Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Sub-clause (2) of Clause 15, giving power to the authority, as defined by the Bill, of power to purchase land compulsorily by means of an order made by the authority, and confirmed by the Minister of Health, be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such order has been complied with."

2. "That, in the case of the Durham County Water Board Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir Luke Thompson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Leslie Boyce.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
    REPORT [17TH APRIL].
    Resolutions reported.
    REPORT [17TH APRIL].
      CUSTOMS.

        COLONIAL SUGAR, MOLASSES, &C.
        1. "That—
        (a) as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the Customs duties in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin consigned from and grown, produced, or manufactured in a colony or other country to which section two of the Finance Act, 1932, applies, shall be at the rates specified in the following two sub-paragraph6 instead of at the rates theretofore chargeable—
        (i) in the case of sugar accompanied by a quota certificate issued on or after the said eighteenth day of April, the duties shall be at the rates set out in the following table:—

        TABLE.

        Article.

        Rate of Duty.

        s.

        d.

        Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 99 degrees the cwt.

        2

        4·7

        Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98 degrees but not exceeding 99 degrees the cwt.

        1

        6·3

        Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 76 degrees the cwt.

        0

        9·6

        Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 76 degrees and not exceeding 98 degrees

        Intermediate rates varying between 9·6d. and 1s. 6·3d. per cwt.

        (ii) in the case of sugar not accompanied by such a certificate, and in the case of molasses, glucose, and saccharin, the duties shall be at the preferential rates, respectively, chargeable under Section eight of the Finance Act, 1925, and Section four of the Finance Act, 1928, on sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin being Empire products;
        (b) the quantity of sugar in respect of which quota certificates are issued shall not in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and subsequent financial years exceed three hundred and sixty thousand tons;
        (c) in the case of sugar and molasses produced in the United Kingdom from material on which there has been paid a Customs duty at a rate chargeable by
        1902
        virtue of this Resolution, drawback shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Section four of, and the Second Schedule to, the Finance Act, 1928, except that in the application of the said Schedule to sugar and molasses produced as aforesaid from sugar on which there has been paid a duty at a rate chargeable by virtue of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of this Resolution, the scales set out in the following tables shall be substituted for the scales set out in Part II of the said Schedule:—

        TABLE I.

        Scale applicable in case of Sugar.

        Degree of polarisation.

        Rate or amount of drawback.

        Of a polarisation exceeding 99 degrees.

        Where the rate of duty paid was 2s. 4·7d. the cwt., a drawback at the same rate.

        Where a rate of duty less than 2s. 4·7d. was paid, a drawback at the rate of 1s. 7·4d. the cwt.

        Of a polarisation not exceeding 99 degrees.

        A drawback equal to the duty chargeable under sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of this Resolution on sugar of the like polarisation.

        TABLE II.

        Scale applicable in case of Molasses.

        Nature of molasses.

        Amount of drawback.

        s.

        d.

        If containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter and weighing not less than 14 pounds to the gallon the cwt.

        0

        4½

        If containing more than 50 per cent. but not more than 60 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

        0

        7

        If containing more than 60 per cent. but not more than 70 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

        0

        9

        If containing more than 70 per cent. but not more than 80 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

        1

        0½

        If containing more than 80 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

        1

        2½

        And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

      HYDROCARBON OILS.
      2. "That—

      (a) where on or after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, any dutiable hydrocarbon oils on which duty has not been paid are used in a refinery otherwise than for the purpose of generating heat, light, or power for consumption in the refinery, the same duty

      1903
      shall be charged and the same rebate shall be allowed in respect thereof as would be chargeable or allowable on the importation of the like oils;

      Provided that—

      (i) oils shall not be deemed to have been used by reason only that they have been subjected to a process of purification or blending;

      (ii) where oils are subjected to any process resulting in the conversion thereof into other oils or solid or semi-solid residues, such quantity thereof as has been so converted or has been wasted in the course of the process shall not be deemed to have been used by reason only of its subjection to that process;

      (iii) nothing in this paragraph shall affect the charge of duty or allowance of rebate on oils delivered from a refinery;

      (b) where a refinery is not used primarily for the purpose of subjecting hydrocarbon oils to any such process as aforesaid, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may require that customs duty shall be charged and rebate allowed on the removal of such oils to the refinery instead of on their delivery therefrom, but where rebate has been allowed on the removal of oils to a refinery and those oils are converted in the refinery into light oils, an amount equal to the rebate shall be repaid;

      (c) as from the said first day of May, any customs duty payable or rebate or drawback allowable in respect of any artificially heated hydrocarbon oils (not being light oils) having a temperature exceeding sixty degrees Fahrenheit shall be payable or allowable on the number of gallons which the oil would have measured if the temperature thereof had been sixty degrees Fahrenheit.

      And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

      ARC-LAMP CARBONS.
      3. "That, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the Customs duty chargeable on arc-lamp carbons under Part I of the Safegarding of Industries Act, 1921, shall, instead of being at the rate of one shilling per pound, be at the following rates:—

      Carbons exceeding 14 millimetres in diameter

      5s. 0d. per lb.

      Other carbons

      7s. 6d. per lb.

      And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

      PATENT LEATHER.
      4. "That, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four,
      1904
      any duty of Customs chargeable on patent leather not forming part of another article and on goods composed wholly of patent leather shall, instead of being charged under Part I of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be charged under Section one of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, and shall be a duty equal to fifteen per cent. of the value of the goods;

      Provided that—

      (a) this Resolution shall not apply to any goods which fall within some class or description of goods on which an additional duty is for the time being chargeable under Section three of the Import Duties Act 1932, if the aggregate amount of that additional duty and of the general ad valorem duty exceeds fifteen per cent. of the value of the goods;

      (b) Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, shall not apply in relation to any duty chargeable by virtue of this Resolution.

      And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

      IMPORT DUTIES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS).
      5. "That it is expedient to amend the Import Duties Act, 1932, and the enactments amending that Act in the following (among other) particulars—

      (a) the Treasury shall have power, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee,—

      (i) to order that, as soon as any class or description of goods becomes chargeable with the general ad valorem duty by virtue of an order made under Section seven of the Finance Act, 1932, an additional duty shall be charged in respect thereof under Section three of the Import Duties Act, 1932; and

      (ii) to revoke any scheme for the allowance of drawback made under Section nine of the Finance Act, 1932;

      (b) proviso (a) to Sub-section (5) of Section nineteen of the Import Duties Act, 1932 (which provides that orders made under Section one of that Act may not be varied or revoked), shall cease to have effect."

      INCOME TAX.

        CHARGE OF TAX.
        6. "That—

        (a) Income Tax for the year 1934–35 shall be charged at the standard rate of four shillings and sixpence in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;

        (b) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1933–34 shall have effect with

        1905
        respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1934–35.

        And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

      HIGHER BATES OF INCOME TAX FOE 1933–34.
      7. "That income tax for the year 1933–34 shall be charged, in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeded two thousand pounds, at the same higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as were charged for the year 1932–33.
      And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

      INCOME TAX ON CERTAIN RENTS, MINING ROYALTIES, ETC.
      8. "That—

      (a) any rent payable in respect of any land the property in which is not separately assessed and charged under Schedule A, or in respect of any easement shall, if—

      (i) the land or easement is used, occupied or enjoyed in connection with any of the concerns specified in Rules 1, 2, and 3 of No. III of Schedule A, or

      (ii) the lease or other agreement under which the rent is payable provides for the recoupment of the rent by way of reduction of royalties or payments of a similar nature in the event of the land or easement being used, occupied, or enjoyed as aforesaid,

      be charged with tax under Schedule D, and, in a case where it is rendered in produce of the concern, shall be charged under Case III of the said Schedule D and as if the profits or income arising therefrom were the value of the produce so rendered, and in any other case shall be treated, for the purpose of such of the provisions of the income Tax Acts as refer to royalties paid in respect of the user of a patent, as if it were such a royalty;

      (b) subject to the provisions of section two of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, any deduction on account of income tax made by any person from any payment of rent at any time before the date of the passing of this Resolution, which would have been a legal deduction if the provisions of this Resolution had been in force at that time, shall be deemed for all purposes (including all the purposes of legal proceedings instituted before the said date) to have been a legal deduction to which all the provisions of Rule 19 or Rule 21 of the General Rules, as the case may be, were applicable:

      (c) the provisions of sub-section (2) of section two hundred and eleven of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall have effect as
      1906
      if the provisions of this Resolution had come into force on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four;

      (d) in this Resolution—

      (i) the expression "easement" includes any right, privilege, or benefit in, over, or derived from land;

      (ii) the expression "rent" includes a rent service, rent charge, fee farm rent, feu duty or other rent, toll, duty, royalty, or annual or periodical payment in the nature of rent, whether payable in money or money's worth or otherwise, but does not include any of the payments enumerated in Rules 1 to 6 of No. II. of Schedule A.

      And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

      ESTATE DUTY.

        DUTY IN RESPECT OF ANNUITIES AND OTHER INTERESTS.
        9. "That for the purposes of paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of section two of the Finance Act, 1894, where an annuity or other interest has been purchased or provided by the deceased, either by himself alone or in concert or by arrangement with any other person, the extent of any beneficial interest therein accruing or arising by survivorship or otherwise on the death of the deceased shall be ascertained and shall be deemed always to have been ascertainable without regard to any expectant interest the beneficiary may have had therein before the death."
        First Resolution read a Second time.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        3.53 p.m.
        Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to explain what this Resolution does. He told us earlier that it was to readjust certain difficulties between the West Indies and Canada in the operation of Empire preference, but to follow exactly how it does it by the mere reading of this document is difficult, and I am sure he would not like the House to pass anything without a full understanding of what it is.
        3.54 p.m.
        The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I thought this was one of those Resolutions which would be thought to be self-explanatory, but I will very gladly add a few words to what I said on the subject

        1907
        in my Budget statement. There is no question of principle involved here. It is a change of form of the existing Colonial preference, and it is designed to meet a difficulty which has arisen in connection with the depreciation of the Canadian dollar. The original form of preference was intended to make no change in the destination of sugar exported from the West Indies, which largely was taken in Canada, but, owing to the depreciation of the Canadian dollar, the effect has been that the Canadian preference has become less valuable than the British preference, and the result of that has been that a constantly increasing amount of West Indian sugar, instead of going, as formerly, to Canadian refineries, has come to this country. That has been embarrassing both to us and to Canada, and we desire now to free the preference from any bias of that kind and to leave it in such a form that the West Indian sugar can go freely to Canada or to this country, according as the normal trade demands require. That is the explanation of the purpose of the Clause, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman needs any further explanation, I shall be happy to see if I can give it.
        Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
        Second Resolution read a Second time.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        3.57 p.m.
        Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May we have an explanation of what the Hydrocarbon Oils Duty does? Some of us spent a long time last night trying to understand it, but we could not make head or tail of it. Is it an extra tax on oil?
        3.58 p.m.
        The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Paragraph (a) of this Resolution deals with the use of hydrocarbon oils in refineries otherwise than for refining in the ordinary sense, and ancillary purposes. Except in one or two cases, the paragraph does not alter the existing practice for duty purposes in regard to any oil refinery or other undertaking. It
        1908
        merely stops a leakage, which is at present small, but which might easily become more serious. As the law now stands, in the case of a bonded refinery, only oil delivered from the refinery is chargeable to the Oil Duty, so that any oil used inside a refinery and not delivered from a refinery as oil is exempt from duty. It has been found that certain refinery concerns are treating crude oil by a kind of refining to produce not oil but gas, and new processes are in sight for manufacturing various chemical products from gases obtained from oil. Therefore, as matters now stand, in these cases the oil used in making the gas goes free of duty, and that is the leak that we desire to stop. The effect of paragraph (a) therefore is, that oils used in refineries are to pay duty except when, as set out in the proviso, they are used for refining in the ordinary sense.
        Paragraph (b) enables the case of the refinery which produces gas and not oil to be dealt with in the simplest and most obvious way, by providing that the duty shall be paid on oil before it comes into the refinery, instead of, as is now the case, the duty being paid on oil leaving the refinery. Paragraph (c) alters the basis of assesment of duty on heavy hydrocarbon oils which are artificially heated from actual gallons, as now, to gallons of a standard temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Artificial heating, of course, increases the bulk of the oil, with the consequence that duty has to be paid at a higher rate than is conceived to be just. The fixing of the rate upon a standard temperature will remove a slight grievance and will make the duty conform with trade practice. The House will see that these are merely machinery Clauses, for preventing certain anomalies that have become apparent in the administration of the Oil Duty.
        Sir BASIL PETO: With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said as to paragraphs (a) and (b), is not the burden of it to extend the duty on hydrocarbon oils to the gas used from the oils?
        Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, the oils used in making the gas.
        Sir B. PETO: Then it extends the leakage to the product of the oils?
        Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is not the case. The tax will be upon the oil used

        1909
        in making gas. Under the present law the duty is only payable when oil leaves the refinery, but it has been found that certain refiners use oil not merely for the purpose of refining but for making gas. If they were not refiners, they would have to pay the Oil Duty, and consequently all producers using oil for making gas are put on exactly the same footing.
        Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is quite clear that the fear that this Resolution will add a penny tax on a gallon of oil is quite unfounded?
        Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Quite. The Resolution goes no further than the description I have given.
        Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
        Third Resolution read a Second time.
        4.4 p.m.
        Sir PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out "5s. 0d.," and to insert "1s. 1d."
        The effect of this Resolution, apparently, has not been noticed by the vast majority of Members of the House. It very nearly escaped my attention. I had assumed that it was merely a variation, and not likely to affect any of the great industries of the country, but, during the last two or three days, I have been approached by a number of people who are dependent, almost for their existence—anyhow, for the prosperity of their industry—on this article which it is to be subject to the prohibitive tax which is to be imposed by this duty. They have asked me—I need hardly say I have got no personal interest in the matter—to put their case, which, I think I shall be able to show the House, is an unanswerable one, for the abolition of this extra duty. I think that the House and country have a real grievance that no explanation is thought to be necessary either to the House or to the country, no White Paper, no public inquiry—I do not think that it was even mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, if so, only in a few passing words. I can only excuse that by the many calls upon the Chancellor's time.
        I think that when I have stated my case the right hon. Gentleman will see that, at any rate, there is a case to be
        1910
        reconsidered. Let me say that I do not want to raise the larger problem of Free Trade or Protection. After all, we are now living in a tariff country. For better or for worse, we have the elaborate machinery of tariffs both for revenue and for protectionist purposes, and the various interests concerned are not challenging the larger issue. Of course, this is not a new duty. It dates back to the old key industries of 1921—to those ancient times when the Financial Secretary, no doubt, was a severe critic of this kind of duty. But in 1921, in the interest of national defence and national safety, certain duties, it will be remembered, were imposed on a scale of 33⅓ per cent. Our present system of dye duties owe their origin to that policy. In 1926, there was a very able Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of no less a person than Sir Burton Chadwick which applied its mind particularly to these electric carbons. They recommended that, in order to make these duties more effective in connection with these important industries, they should be changed from an ad valorem duty to a duty on a weight basis, and the result was that the duty was fixed at 1s. a pound. For 13 years the industries have had protection. I would remind the House that when the duties were originally imposed it was in order to establish the industries on a basis which, it was hoped, would, in the long run, be firm enough to enable them to stand alone. They have had 13 years of Safeguarding to enable them to stand alone.
        The duty, as originally imposed, was 33⅓ per cent., but on the new basis imposing the duty on weight, the duty on the high intensity grades came to something like 70 per cent. and on the cheaper grades to 120 per cent. But if you add the effect of going off gold, it is not unreasonable to say that since 1926 these articles have had protection equivalent to 150 per cent. on the cheaper grades and 100 per cent. on the higher grades. What are these proposed duties? They have been described by the interests concerned as a sledge-hammer being used to crack a nut. If it were thought desirable, in the public interest, to stop the importation of this article, 2s. 6d., I am assured, would be quite effective, but under these new duties, which have been slipped through by the Resolution without comment or explanation, these articles are to

        1911
        be subject to a duty of 7s. 6d. In the case of the lower grade costing 1s. 6d. or the higher grade costing 2s. 6d. the same duty of 7s. 6d. is applied, so that it is not an excessive estimate to say that the cheaper article is to be subject to a duty of 500 per cent. and the higher grade article to a duty of 300 per cent.
        Would it not be simpler and more honest to prohibit the importation of the article altogether? If it is a case of showing that it is in the public interest that electric carbons should not be imported into this country, surely the most obvious action to take in preference to a duty on this scale would be to prohibit importation. I am assured that the importation is completely stopped. It is not a question of dumping or price-cutting. The Government know very well that this foreign article for the last 10 years has been at a higher price than the home-produced article. In fact, there has been a price ring or understanding between the various interests concerned, and it is understood that the foreign article, because of its quality and efficiency, is always sold at a higher price than the home-produced article. Therefore, it is not a question of protecting the home industry from unfair competition.
        This little article, as is no doubt familiar to some hon. Members, is made from soot. An essential article in the manufacture of electric carbons is soot, and it goes through a very high process of chemical treatment. The industry on the Continent dates from 1870. It, no doubt, had an immense advantage in an early start, and our English manufacturers have had to make up lee-way. No doubt, too, the manufacturers in Germany, France and the United States of America have an advantage in that they have discovered some secret process of production which makes the article efficient.
        This particular electric carbon has become an article of general commercial use. First, it is essential in the cinema trade, both for the purpose of manufacturing films, and, secondly, of course, for projecting on the screen in the theatre the film after it is produced. It is vital in order to get a clear effect. Anybody who visits a picture house knows the difference between the good, steady,
        1912
        bright light and the inefficient and unsatisfactory carbon, because where you get the projection on a satisfactory basis, you get steadiness and clearness of effect, and one of the reasons for the remarkable progress made in the cinema during the last few years has been the progress made in the manufacture of these electric carbons. I am told—I await the Minister's explanation—that the association representing the cinema industry has agreed to this tax. I am assured, on the other hand, by a great number of the exhibitors, that it by no means represents the majority of the interests concerned. On the contrary, now that this new tax has been made public, it has taken the trade entirely by surprise, and the whole of the industry are up in arms. They say that this will be a serious tax which will handicap them, and interfere with the efficiency of this gradually growing and expanding industry in this country. They were not consulted individually, and they were not conscious that the Minister was taking advice from various persons when he imposed the tax. There has been a great deal of discontent during the last few months—

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

  1. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1934.

  2. Overseas Trade Act, 1934.

  3. South Metropolitan Gas (No. 1) Act, 1934.

  4. Brighton, Hove and Worthing Gas Act, 1934.

  5. East Worcestershire Water Act, 1934.

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    REPORT [17TH APRIL].
    4.26 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Before that interlude took place I was explaining how seriously affected the cinema industry will be by this new tax. I am sorry that there is nobody representing the Treasury on the Front Bench

    1913
    now. Apparently, they do not think it important enough to give an explanation for imposing the new tax. Although we have a representative of the Board of Trade here, this is not a trade matter. It is the question of a new duty being imposed by a Budget resolution which will seriously affect thousands of people throughout the country. I am assured that this duty will impose a tax on the ordinary large cinema of over £10 a week. There is a great agitation from the trade to remove the penal taxation on the lower priced tickets for cinema theatres. This is the Chancellor's reply. His excuse is that the revenue will not
    permit him to reduce the Entertainments Duty; instead, without a word of explanation and without bothering to issue a report, he imposes this new penal tax. I move the Adjournment of the Debate in order that this important matter should have adequate attention by the responsible Department. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, or at any rate his deputy, should give us the courtesy of his attendance.
    Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 219.

    Division No. 213.]

    AYES.

    [4.30 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grenfell, David Haas (Glamorgan)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Banfield, John William

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Saltar, Dr. Alfred

    Bernays, Robert

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Janner, Barnett

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Buchanan, George

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Thorne, William James

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Kirkwood, David

    West, F. R.

    Cove, William G.

    Leonard, William

    White, Henry Graham

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lunn, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    McEntee, Valentino L.

    Wilmot, John

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Dabble, William

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Edwards, Charles

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Maxton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Sir Percy Harris and Sir Robert Hamilton.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parkinson, John Allan

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Clarke, Frank

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Calville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Balniel, Lord

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Copeland, Ida

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Blindell, James

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Borodaie, Viscount

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Cross, R. H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Hartland, George A.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Denville, Alfred

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Buchan, John

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hornby, Frank

    Burnett, John George

    Eales, John Frederick

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Elmley, Viscount

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Carver, Major William H.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mars)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Jones, Lawis (Swansea, West)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Knight, Holford

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Munro, Patrick

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Levy, Thomas

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Soper, Richard

    Lewis, Oswald

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peteref'ld)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    North, Edward T.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Nunn, William

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Stevenson, James

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Stones, James

    Mabane, William

    Pearson, William G.

    Storey, Samuel

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Potter, John

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Tree, Ronald

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Maitland, Adam

    Rickards, George William

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Rungs, Norah Cecil

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Scone, Lord

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Selley, Harry R.

    Sir George Penny and Sir Victor

    Warrender.

    Original Question proposed, "That '5s. 0d.' stand part of the Resolution."
    4.38 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I must apologise for the interruption, but there is a feeling outside that this duty has been smuggled through; and there is this justification for that feeling, that we have not been favoured with a White Paper or any kind of report, or even any speech, explaining this proposal. Then Ministers followed up that course of action by staying away from this discussion, and now they are adding to their discourtesy by carrying on a private conversation. Apparently they do not think this subject worthy of discussion, or perhaps they deliberately want to avoid discussion, would like to get this duty passed without comment, so that the public would know nothing about it. But we are not going to let them escape. I have no importance in this matter, I am only a Private Member, but the public outside are entitled to have a frank statement. The Government must not think that, because they have an immense majority, they have such control of public finance that they can smuggle through new duties, under pressure from private interests, without any comment in this House. The interests outside think
    1916
    they are being penalised by this taxation, and I think the attitude adopted by Ministers this afternoon rather confirms and justifies that impression. It it had not been for my intervention, apparently there would have been no explanation whatever from either the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whose duty it is, when a new duty is being imposed, to explain the reason for it. This duty was moved without even a word of comment from the right hon. Gentleman or his understudy, and I think we have good grounds for complaint. We here desire to maintain the traditions of Parliament, which controls taxation, and for that reason I felt justified in moving the Adjournment.
    I have referred to the penal effect of this new duty on the cinema industry. Apparently the Chancellor has a grudge against the cinema industry. He is annoyed at their campaign against him because he has not found it possible to reduce the Entertainments Tax in the case of cinemas, and so he has slipped in this new duty which, as I explained in his absence and in the absence of his Financial Secretary, imposes a burden of £10 a week upon many theatres, in addition to the many other

    1917
    burdens which they have to bear in these difficult times. But there are other important industries which are also affected. There is the photo-process trade, a very big industry, which has grown enormously in the last 20 years. Not only does it do a very large home trade but, against competition from foreign countries, it is doing a considerable export trade. I have had bundles of letters on the subject. As soon as it was known that I was taking up this case various interests wrote to me. They assure me that they have made every endeavour to encourage the use of British-manufactured electric carbons. Most of these industries are in favour of Protection, and, being anxious to develop British industry, they have done all they could to give a preference to British-made carbons, but for some reason or other, which it is perhaps difficult to explain, they have found that in order to compete effectively with foreign countries it was vital to use the best quality electric carbons available and they have been forced to import the foreign article from France, Germany or America. It is necessary in the process of photo-engraving to have a carbon which is steady in burning and constant in intensity, and although the English article is 13 per cent. below the cost of the foreign it is essential for them, they have found, to use the foreign article.
    I saw to-day the managing director of two of the largest engineering companies in the country, men who are not interested in politics and with no views on Free Trade or Protection but who are profoundly interested in maintaining the efficiency of their trade. I do not want to mention the names of those firms—there is no objection to mentioning their names—but I am prepared to give them to the Minister if he questions their reliability and their right to speak for the industry concerned. One firm are the largest manufacturers of electro-photo printing machines. They have endeavoured to make contracts with British manufacturers, but experience has shown that the result of using the British substitute has been a decrease in printing efficiency of 25 to 30 per cent. I have a letter from them here that I would be willing to put in in the course of this Debate.
    1918
    I do not suppose that the Minister has bothered to make himself familiar with the article in question. Here is one of these carbons, apparently a very simple article of commerce. The tax upon it, as it will affect the photo process engraving houses is worth mentioning. I have here, upon the notepaper of the firm in question, the actual figures. Perhaps the Minister would like to be informed about them and made wise. If Ministers would take the trouble to study properly all such matters, perhaps they would not so lightly impose a new duty without a word of explanation to the House of Commons. This particular carbon is 18 millimetres in diameter and 12 inches long, and the cost, free of duty, is 2.52d. or, with the duty of one shilling per pound added, 5.52d. If you add the new duty, that the Treasury are now imposing without explanation, of 7s. 6d. per pound, the cost of the article to the consumer and the user to whom it is essential in photo-engraving is increased from the original invoice price of 2½d. to 2s. 1d. That is the effect of the increased tax. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade nods; he confirms what I say.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The Parliamentary Secretary intimated that he would like to see the letter.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Then he has apparently not already informed himself of the facts. Here is the letter, and it will make him wise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, get on with it!"] I do not want to bother the House with technical facts—[An HON. MEMBER: "Expose the ramp"]—or with technical workings with which the Parliamentary Secretary is no doubt familiar. There are at present 12,000 photo-printing machines in this country actually at work and dependent upon supplies of cheap and efficient electric carbons for doing that work. I am assured by the industries concerned that the new duty has come upon them as a staggering blow.
    It may be, as the Government are not moved by the interests of the engineering trade or of the cinema trade, that they will listen to the point of view of the hospitals. Most of the up-to-date private hospitals, and some of our public hospitals, are now equipped with are lamps for therapeutic treatment. Immense progress has been made in the

    1919
    treatment of skin diseases such as lupus and rickets, and in order to get satisfactory results it is essential to have efficient carbons. I have had the advantage to-day of talking to the consulting engineer of the largest hospital in London. I did not propose to mention the name of the hospital, but as the Minister is so indifferent I will do so; it is St. Bartholomews. What I am about to say applies not only to St. Bartholomews but practically to all the hospitals in London. The consulting engineer assured me that he has made various experiments in order to use British carbons, but owing to various reasons, similar to those that I have given for the printing and cinema trades, he has not met with success. If the case is strong for the printing and cinema trades it is very much stronger for the hospitals. In the case of the hospitals, in order to get satisfactory results it is necessary to use a specially manufactured carbon to provide the ultra violet rays. An inefficient carbon gives variation and does not give satisfactory results.
    The engineer assured me that it would be cheaper to buy British carbons, but, as a result of experiments, it was established that, whereas the British carbon lasted from four to six hours, the foreign carbon, which had been through very highly chemicalised treatment, lasted 12 hours. In 1933 this hospital used 516 lbs. of carbons, valued at £180. The extra duty, which may seem a small matter to hon. Members, will cost the hospital over £100 on that quantity. We need only multiply that £100 by the number of hospitals which are applying the treatment in order to see what a serious tax this will be upon those hospitals. I am also assured that, in spite of the extra duty, it will still be necessary for the hospitals to import the foreign article if successful results are to be obtained in the treatment. I think the Minister might have spent a little time in inquiring from the medical profession when he was contemplating putting on this new tax. Perhaps he will make himself wise between now and the appearance of the Finance Bill.
    I am glad to see the First Lord of the Admiralty here. Maybe he is here by accident and not by design. I welcome him; he is a good example to his colleagues who represent the Treasury,
    1920
    because he has been very diligent in the discharge of his duty. That is not surprising, considering that he is an old Chief Whip. I am glad to see him here for very practical reasons. A case for a protective duty is put up in regard to certain industries because of the needs of national defence. The needs of national defence are always paramount, and if we could be sure that it is necessary to prohibit the importation of this article in order to secure that the necessary carbons were available for national defence, I should be the very last person to object. The Minister will correct me, I hope, if I am wrong, but I understand that practically all the requirements of the various Departments, such as for strategic purposes, searchlights for anti-aircraft purposes, and so on, and for the Navy, are supplied by the General Electric Company, and that we are independent of foreign supplies. The position is in no way interfered with by the foreign imports. The latter are imported not because of their price but because of their technical efficiency and because they meet the requirements of industry and trade. I am further informed that one month's output would meet the requirements for a five-year's war. The article is not perishable, it can be easily stored, and can be kept for a long time, and it does not require very much storage space. I want to say a word about the imported article. I am not going to put up a case for the importer. If, in the interests of national safety or of industry, one or two importers go to the wall, nobody in this House of Commons is going to shed many tears of sympathy.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Is that the new Liberalism?
    Sir P. HARRIS: No, that is not my ease. The importer is entitled to his point of view. He has been carrying on a legitimate trade. He found a ready demand for this article, and he was not undercutting the British article, and was not a party to dumping or to unfair competition. On the contrary, he was part of a trade organisation representing, I am informed, the interests of both producers and importers. The result of the tax so lightly imposed by the Government is that 300 men, mostly skilled engineers, have been thrown out of employment. Very large businesses have already

    1921
    closed down, and several men have been completely ruined without even the courtesy of a word of explanation, either when the Budget was introduced or upon the Report stage. They are taxpayers and they were carrying on business, paying their way and employing people, and they were certainly entitled to some consideration.
    One very important firm had £1,500 of electric carbons held up by the Customs without any adequate excuse. For a couple of months the firm had been trying to pass those electric carbons through the Customs House, but all kinds of excuses were made and difficulties were put in their way until the day after the Budget Resolutions were passed. It may have been a mere accident or it may have been due to the skill of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in preventing forestalling, but it was a curious coincidence—I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will listen to this—that on the day after the Budget was passed, in respect of this £1,500 parcel the firm received a debit note for duty of £10,000 under the new rate imposed by Resolution of this House. That is a little high-handed and means the closing down of that industry. We are living in a tariff country and this is one of the inevitable results of the tariff system, and perhaps we have no good grounds for complaint, but when the Government embark upon a new duty of this penal character Parliament and the country are entitled to some explanation.
    When the duty was imposed before, there was a proper inquiry by a properly constituted Board of Trade committee, and a White Paper was issued so that the House and the industries concerned should be informed. During the last few years, new duties that have been imposed have gone by way of the procedure of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Have the Advisory Committee been consulted in this case? Is it on their advice that the new duties have been imposed? If it is, it is a very remarkable thing that no evidence has been taken from the industries concerned, neither from the printing trade, the hospitals nor the importers. There is great suspicion of back-stair influence and that interested parties, who have aimed for a long time to get a monopoly, have very skilfully brought
    1922
    pressure to bear on the Minister. I am informed that the chairman of the largest manufacturers of electric carbons in this country admitted to a meeting of his association that he had been in constant contact with the Treasury. His advice had been given to the Government and, naturally, he was doing what he could to secure the imposition of this prohibitive tax. If I have done nothing else I think I have stirred up a certain amount of public interest. I think that the more inquiry and the more searchlight is turned on this subject the less justification there will be for this penal duty. I move the Amendment, which is of a rather negative character, to provide the House with an opportunity of dividing on the subject.
    5.1 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It has been moved in such a comprehensive speech that it relieves me from the necessity of going over many of the points that have been made clear by my hon. Friend. Until he elucidated the matter the House was in complete ignorance with regard to the introduction of this tax, and we who are responsible for seeing the tax put on have the duty imposed upon us of finding out the reason and trying to realise what the effect is going to be. It is obvious that the tax is not imposed for the purpose of revenue. No question of revenue comes into it. The result of the imposition of the tax is simply the equivalent of a complete embargo. The total amount of carbons that have been imported from abroad does not amount to any very large sum in money values, and had the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to raise some small amount by a tax imposed on the importation it would not have been in the nature of 300 or 500 per cent. tax, but something very much smaller. Therefore, I think we can put out of our minds the idea that there is anything in the nature of revenue in the tax.
    Why has the tax been imposed? What is the object of suddenly keeping out an article which has been used for a great many years in this country, and which cannot be procured in this country? From such inquiries as I have been able to make, and as my hon. Friend has explained, in spite of the high duty of 60 per cent. which has been imposed on

    1923
    the imported article, entirely apart from the fact that we have gone off gold, which increases the difficulty of importation still further, the foreign article has always obtained a higher price in the home market than the home article. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that the consumers in this country have bought the foreign article because it was something which they could not get at home. They were prepared to pay a higher price for it than for the home article because it was necessary for the processes they had in hand, whether in connection with the cinema world or the hospitals.
    With regard to the hospitals, I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend said. He pointed out that in regard to Bart's alone, that hospital will have to pay an increase of £100 a year in the amount they spend in purchasing carbons, as the result of this tax. We ought to bear in mind that if the importation of these foreign carbons is entirely excluded it is possible that the price of the home article will go up very considerably, and therefore the price which Bart's will have to pay will be a good deal more than the £100 which they estimate they will have to pay because of the increased tax. In a ease like this where we have a home industry turning out carbons not as good as the foreign carbons—we have to admit that they are perfectly good for certain purposes but not equally good for other purposes—and where that industry has been built up behind a tax of 60 per cent., and there has also been the advantage given to it by our having gone off the gold standard, I cannot see that there can be any other argument for building up a further wall behind which the home industry can establish itself. The argument that is so often put up in tariff Debates is, that if you put up a wall high enough you give the industry behind the wall an opportunity to establish itself so firmly that afterwards the wall can be knocked down and the industry can meet opposition from abroad; but as a matter of fact when a wall has once been put up it is very seldom knocked down.
    Here there is no case for that. Here is an industry which has had all that protection, which has entered into contracts to supply large quantities of carbon to many firms, but it has not succeeded in
    1924
    turning out carbons as good as those which can be procured abroad. Where an embargo has been put on foreign importation one result must be that there is less inducement for the home industry to devote its attention to turning out a better article. It rather inclines them to say: "You can take what we make, or go without." Therefore, there will be less inducement for them to spend money on fresh plant or chemical investigation in order to turn out an article as good as that that we have been getting from abroad. I am given to understand that the success which has attended the efforts of foreign chemists has been due to a variety of causes, possibly partly climatic, possibly partly due to secret processes with which we are not acquainted, and partly due to the long time that the foreign firms who produce this article have been engaged in the business, always going on improving their methods of manufacture.
    That being the case, we are entitled to have a very clear explanation from the Minister why this tax has been imposed. So far as I have been able to come into contact with people who are interested in the use of this article, I find that the users as a whole are entirely in favour of the foreign article being allowed to come in under the same conditions as it comes in at present. That being so, one can only imagine that the urge to put on this tax has come from some other source, and naturally one looks to the home manufacturers. If, as a matter of fact, the urge has come from the home manufacturers, the more do we seek to know the reason that has impelled those representing the industry who have gone to the Treasury to put arguments before the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the imposition of this tax.
    It is clear that there has been no public inquiry into the matter. I do not understand that there has been any reference of the matter to the Tariff Commission. Had there been such a reference, there would have been an opportunity given for all the interests concerned to put their case. There does not seem to have been any inquiry of any sort. The trade has been taken absolutely by surprise. Supplies which have been imported into this country are lying in the Customs now, and with the new

    1925
    tax imposed it is not worth while clearing them. My hon. Friend referred to the manner in which importers were looked upon by certain Members of the present House. It is not very long ago that the merchants of this country were held in high honour, even though they did import things from abroad. I hope that it is not because the articles really come from abroad that proposals are put forward for their exclusion from this country. The importers, who are carrying out their duty of supplying something that is needed in this country by the users of these articles, should not be penalised in this way, and it is the duty of Members of this House to ask for a full explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the tax has been put on.
    5.11 p.m.
    Dr. BURGIN: When a Budget Resolution comes before the House in this way, it is open to any Member of the House to ask for an explanation of the Resolution and to ask what is intended, and that explanation is very frequently given. An alternative opportunity is given to hon. Members to put down Amendments. The hon. Baronet has chosen the method of putting down an Amendment, and for the last hour and a-half the only thing that has stood between the House and the explanation has been the hon. Baronet's Amendment.
    Sir P. HARRIS: The hon. Member could have made a statement in moving the Resolution. It is the general custom to do so.
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Baronet is not accurate in his statement. It is the practice to move the Resolution in the way that I have indicated. However, I am most anxious to give an explanation, more particularly as the two speeches to which we have listened bear very little reference to the facts of the subject matter under discussion. The hon. Baronet, as befits a debate on are lamp carbons, became almost incandescent in his wrath. Having very liberally indicated the way in which, in his judgment, Ministers had not looked up this matter, he fell into almost every conceivable error of fact, statement or deduction in connection with the proposed Resolution. I want to deal with the matter. Let me call the attention of the House, in the
    1926
    first place, to the fact that the hon. Baronet's Amendment suggests an increase in the tax. His Amendment suggests that the existing duty of 1s. should be increased to 1s. 1d.
    The duty of 1s. was put on in the year 1926. What is the test of whether a duty is proving effective for the purpose for which it is imposed? Surely it has something to do with the imports which come in afterwards. You test whether or not your duty has been effective by seeing whether the foreign imports are still able to jump the barrier and come into the home market.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: It depends on the purpose of the tax.
    Dr. BURGIN: The purpose of the tax was to help the local industry and to some extent to keep out the foreign goods. In. 1926 when the Committee, to which the hon. Baronet has referred, reported, they said that the ad valorem duty had proved ineffective as a protection to the home carbon industry. In 1923, a little over 5,000,000 carbons were imported into this country, of a value of a little over £20,000. That figure has been rising. Sometimes it has been well above 6,500,000. In the year 1933, after this tax of 1s. per lb. had been 8 years in force, the number of carbons still coming into this country was only just short of 6,000,000, and the value had more than doubled since 1923, so that the duty of 1s. per lb. had proved to be entirely ineffective to stop the imports which it had been the object of the duty to keep out.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Did it not also show that, in spite of the tax, they were still coming into this country?
    Dr. BURGIN: It might equally have shown, and it is the fact, that the stimulus to local manufacture had not been sufficiently great with a duty of 1s., but might, had the duty been increased, have been more effective. The hon. Baronet himself realises that national defence comes into this matter. Are lamp carbons are essential for searchlights and certain types of national defence apparatus, and it is, in the considered judgment of the Government, necessary that there should be a local are lamp carbon manufacture. What are the best means of encouraging that manufacture, and which are the industries that are most likely to be

    1927
    anxious to have a local manufacture in full operation? The hon. Baronet has referred a good deal to the cinematograph industry—
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman—
    Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps I might make my explanation first, and then the hon. Member can ask any questions. The matter involves a number of facts which I want to place before the House. The hon. Baronet made some observations which did not seem to me to be very complimentary to the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association of Great Britain and Ireland. I understood him to say that he did not think that that body represented any large proportion of the cinematograph industry—
    Sir P. HARRIS: What I said was that I had heard that the members of the association knew nothing of the action of their secretary in having conferences with the Minister, that they were completely taken by surprise, and that the new duty came to them as a thunderbolt. It will be found that in a few weeks the Minister will hear about it.
    Dr. BURGIN: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Baronet; I thought that he was referring to the percentage of the industry which that body represented. It does in fact represent 86 per cent. of the industry, and it is not a matter of a secretary entering into discussions; there is a formal agreement with the cinematograph industry in the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "With whom?"]—I am trying very hard to be allowed to finish my sentence. The cinematograph industry has entered into a formal agreement with manufacturers of British carbons, to the entire satisfaction of the cinematograph industry. The reason for entering into that agreement was that that big industry in this country was beginning to be seriously alarmed lest it might find itself entirely in the hands of continental manufacturers of are lamp carbons. The consumption of are lamp carbons is such that there is no room in a market for more than a few manufacturers. It is an essential commodity, but one which must, in order to be manufactured at a profit, be manufactured in a market that is
    1928
    assisted by a relatively limited number of people with guaranteed outlets for the supplies; and the are lamp carbon which is essential to this country's national defence is an article of which we as a country ought to encourage the manufacture here. The industry concerned and mostly wanting it applies to the manufacturers and asks whether, if British manufacture is encouraged, the industry can rely upon, first, a good quality article, and, secondly, an article at a proper competitive price.
    No British manufacturer of this commodity has any cause to be grateful to the hon. Baronet or to the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. Things were said about British carbons which I wish quite formally to deny. It was said that they were inefficient, unsatisfactory, and inferior. I am bound to say quite definitely to the House that the information at the disposal of the Government is that there is no purpose for which the British-made carbon is inferior to the foreign-made article. Hon. Members are ready to doubt the efficiency of British industry, but I want to make the statement—
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Would the hon. Gentleman state why the industry pays a higher price for foreign carbons?
    Dr. BURGIN: I will give the hon. Member a somewhat interesting answer. There is one of our great London hospitals which joined in the statement made by the hon. Baronet that they buy these continental carbons, but it turned out on further inquiry that the right hand of the hospital did not know what the left hand was doing, and that one department of the hospital thought it was necessary to have the continental carbons, while the other department of the hospital had for years been using British. The whole point is that it is very largely a matter of fact. If people have been used to particular carbons, they very often do not take the trouble to inquire whether an equivalent article can be made by local manufacture. It is very largely since 1931 that the possibility of supplying the home market from home manufacture has received adequate appreciation.
    I want to make, in the first place, the point that the British carbon is not inferior, and, secondly, I want to make the

    1929
    point that the British cinema industry desires that this duty should be put on and is satisfied with the position. The third point I want to make is that an undertaking will be given that the price of the British are lamp carbon will not be raised. There are certain adjustments in manufacturing costs, but the undertaking will be quite definite, so that hon. Members who have spoken as to the effect of this tax in increasing the costs of a particular industry in a particular year are proceeding on the assumption, either that that industry will continue to buy the foreign article, or that the British article will be raised in price. I venture to think that very soon the industries in question will be buying the British article, and I want it to be perfectly clear that an undertaking will be given that the price of the British article will not be raised.
    With regard to the letter to which the hon. Baronet referred, it is a little unfortunate that the price quoted in the few lines typed on the sheet of letter-paper which he handed to me is calculated at the, wrong rate of duty applicable to the size of carbons therein referred to. The House will appreciate that the carbons of larger size—the half-inch carbons—have the lower duty, and that it is the smaller types of carbon, below 14 millimetres in diameter, to which the higher duty is applied. These calculations have been carefully made so as to invert the duties applied, and, consequently, we can ignore those calculations.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I think we are entitled to know what the duties are. They are pretty high anyhow.
    Dr. BURGIN: Does the hon. Baronet want to know what is the ad valorem incidence? It is perhaps rather high. It is in general between 60 and 100 per cent. of list prices, according to the size and nature of the carbon.
    Sir P. HARRIS: What list prices?
    Dr. BURGIN: British list prices. The only other question with which I want to deal is the question of the hospitals. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) referred to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. I have a list of 300 hospitals, including great London hospitals, to which British carbons are not
    1930
    only supplied now, but have been supplied for many years.
    Mr. H. JOHNSTONE: Solely?
    Dr. BURGIN: Does the hon. Member mean, did they buy any foreign carbons? The information I have is that 300 individual hospitals, including most of the well-known London hospitals, and institutions and private users throughout the country, are supplied with British-made carbons. I do not know at all whether the hospitals in question buy other carbons, but the information I have is quite sufficient for my purpose. We cannot at one and the same time say that the home carbon is not fit for hospital work and yet record that there are 300 hospitals that use it.
    Mr. McENTEE: What is the purpose for which those carbons are used?
    Dr. BURGIN: If hon. Members really think that the purpose for which the are lamp carbon is going to be used is going to make a difference, I do not think they have studied the matter in detail. These carbons are used, as we all know, for the purpose of providing a stable and definite light during operations and other therapeutic work carried out in hospitals, and I am perfectly satisfied with the results of the inquiries I have made. Letters were received asking what the effect would be as regards hospitals, and the whole matter has been thoroughly looked into, and I can give an assurance to the House, firstly, as to quality; secondly, that the hospitals are using British carbons now; and, thirdly, as to cost. There is only one other thing that I need mention. There is a very special lamp, the Finsen Institute lamp, which is in great demand throughout the world. These lamps are very often supplied from Scandinavia, but the House may like to know that the carbons in them are supplied from this country. This lamp, which, with its particular reputation, is in great demand, is in fact fitted with carbons supplied from this country.
    I think I have now disposed of all the points that have been raised, but the hon. Baronet will not mind my pointing out to him that a number of his suggestions appear to cancel out remarks that he made earlier in his speech. He asked why this duty was put on, and suggested that, if we wanted to keep these things out,

    1931
    we should have a complete embargo, and prohibition. At the end of his speech he made an impassioned appeal for the importer, who, he said, ought always to be taken into the picture and allowed to have a share in the trade. But the embargo and the importer will not go very well together. He spoke earlier of the inefficiency and lack of utility of the British-made carbon, but he ended by remarking on the admirable way in which the General Electric Company are supplying the Admiralty for home defence.
    The point is this: Here is a British industry capable of considerable expansion, land capable of employing considerably more workpeople. It gives an undertaking that, if this duty is put on, the price at any rate will not be raised, and it satisfies the Government that it has a research department, which will keep up to date and not fob off on the public an article not in accordance with modern standards. We think that this duty will be a source of national protection, and at the same time will supply the great cinematograph industry with the carbons that it requires.
    Mr. MOLSON: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with one point? He was asked whether the matter had been referred to the Tariff Advisory Committee. If not, will he state the reasons why not.
    Dr. BURGIN: As the duty that we are discussing is a key industry duty, it is outside the scope of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Under the Import Duties Act those matters are not referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee which are already subject to duty under another Act.
    5.31 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: It seems to us that the explanation that the hon. Gentleman has given is an extraordinarily inadequate one—the sort of explanation that one would expect from an ex-Liberal, confusing embargoes with importers. The hon. Gentleman was accusing his old Liberal friend of putting a double argument, but he has failed to observe that the argument for once was an accurate one even though put by a Liberal. The argument as I understood it was that by putting on the embargo you put the importer out of business, which seems to be a perfectly accurate deduction. But, of course,
    1932
    the hon. Gentleman belongs to a Government which believes in the confiscation of property without compensation. I am bound to say that the longer this Government stays in the more I am tempted to adopt a policy on the same lines. What do these sudden impositions of duties mean? They mean that to-day Ian importer is carrying on his business, legitimately, allowed by the community, asked by the community, to supply them with certain kinds of ware. To-morrow morning we find that by the act of the almighty Government his business has disappeared. It does not exist any longer. It has been transferred by the Government to the General Electric Company, which in future will make the profits out of the supply of those commodities to the community which in the past the importer made. This is a principle that the House ought to consider seriously adopting in other matters as well. For instance, I should like to see the land treated in precisely the same way. Why should we not decide that the people who at the moment are drawing profits out of land should cease to draw them?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Not much.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Then they will suffer very little. Therefore, we can transfer them to the hands of the community, which seems to me an excellent idea. I really think that, if the present Government go on much longer, they will at last induce the country to take some of these steps which some of us believe would be very wise steps to take. We were told two years ago that matters of tariffs were to be taken out of politics. That is to say, that cases of the imposition of duty were to be referred to some impartial tribunal in order that an inquiry might be carried out and the merits gone into to see whether, in accordance with the system of scientific tariffs, as I believe it is called, which has been introduced, it was wise that the article should have a tariff put upon it. There were certain articles excluded from that consideration. Take an article like silk, which was also excluded from that consideration? The Chancellor, when there was pressure to impose duties on silk, had the thing specially referred to the Tariff Advisory Committee, and he said he did not think it was right to impose a duty until there had been such an inquiry conducted and a determination

    1933
    come to. Why was not that done in this case? What is the urgency? We have not had one word from the hon. Gentleman as to the urgency of the taxation. Yet we find at the end of the Resolution:
    "It is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act,"
    which means that it is a matter of urgency. I ask the Chancellor seriously, in order that we may know where we are, what was the feature that made it expedient to put on this taxation in this form without any previous inquiry whatever, because it is contrary to the avowed policy of the Government, which has been stated over and over again from that Box, that under the tariff policy you should have proper inquiries, that it should be done scientifically, and that there should be no chance of anyone accusing anyone else of backstair methods, as the Chancellor has been accused by the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment.
    There is another matter which I would ask the Chancellor to have specifically inquired into. A very serious accusation has been made against the Customs authorities. The right hon. Gentleman laughs. If what has been said is true, it is a matter of very serious importance.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman state what his idea of the charge is.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: That certain goods were purposely held up by the Customs for a period of two months in order that they might attract a greater Customs Duty, which the Customs would not have been entitled to charge if they had let them through in the ordinary course of business.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to speak on that particular point without otherwise interrupting his speech. I hardly thought the House had taken the accusation seriously. It must be obvious that it is impossible for me, without knowing the port at which this consignment was delivered, to obtain detailed evidence, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying here and now that I am certain that no official at headquarters ever gave instructions to the officials at the port to hold up this consignment in order that
    1934
    it might come under the increased duty when it came into operation.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sure that is what the right hon. Gentleman would feel about anyone in his Department for whom he is responsible, nevertheless a responsible Member of the House has made an accusation against the Customs Department. I think he is a responsible Member. It is a matter of extreme disquiet to anyone who cares for the proper administration of the Customs duties to think that such a thing could happen, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have an inquiry held into the matter and to satisfy himself and the House that there must have been some mistake, if there was a mistake.
    As regards the further question of the advisability of increasing a tax of this sort, it seems to me that the House is hardly in a position to discuss that today. We have heard very powerful arguments put forward whereby one would judge that this is a most inadvisable tax. The Parliamentary Secretary has put forward some extremely weak arguments whereby one might think it was possibly excusable in certain circumstances. But what the House should consider, in my submission, is whether taxation of this sort, without even a mention in the Budget Speech as to its effect or its incidence, should be allowed to be brought forward when it should be referred to the Tariff Advisory Committee, as the Silk Duties were referred, for their report in order that we may know that all questions are being inquired into publicly, with a full opportunity for everyone to present his views, rather than a suggestion that someone has marched up the backstairs of the Treasury and got the tax imposed for the purpose of creating a monetary advantage to his benefit and a detriment to other people. I and those who sit with me will certainly vote in favour of the Amendment and against the Resolution on these grounds.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. H. JOHNSTONE: The Parliamentary Secretary subdivided his reply into approximately four heads, the first of which was an explanation as to the reason for the original imposition of the tax and its effect. He said it was originally imposed, not for purposes of revenue, but in order to keep out foreign carbons and to give a stimulus to the

    1935
    industry here, but the tax had been found ineffective for that purpose, and consequently, the new tax here proposed was intended to give protection of such a nature as virtually to amount to an embargo—to erect a tariff wall behind which the Britsh industry could build itself up. I should be interested to know whether he received a representation on this subject from all the manufacturers of carbons. The largest manufacturers of carbons are a concern called the Ship Carbon Company, 50 per cent. of whose capital, incidentally, is held in Austria. I do not attach any importance to where the capital is held, but it simply happens to be a fact. The second largest is the General Electric Company, and the third and newest and, I am informed by those in the trade, the most advanced, and producing the best carbons, is the Morgan Crucible Company. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell me later whether the Morgan Crucible Company also joined in the representation for a higher duty, because my information is that the only company which of late years has expended large sums in capital equipment for the production of these carbons is, in fact, opposed to the duty. I may be wrong, but that is my information. The only two companies that have desired this duty have been the Ship Carbon Company and the General Electric Company.
    I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman when he speaks of the growth of imports or, at any rate, the failure to diminish imports, that that must in some degree be accounted for by the increase of the cinematograph industry. The industries that are using these carbons are not standing still. It is not likely that the demand for carbons would decrease but rather that it would increase very rapidly, and if, as I hope to show, the cinematograph industry, in common with all the other industries using carbons, prefers for certain purposes foreign manufactured carbons it is not surprising that even the high duty originally imposed has failed to diminish imports.
    The second point, with which the Parliamentary Secretary only dealt very briefly, was the question of searchlights. He did not contradict my hon. Friend, who had said that, as far as he knew, the whole of the carbons used for
    1936
    Admiralty or War Office purposes were of home manufacture; nevertheless, he based part of his argument on the desire held in Admiralty and War Office circles for the promotion of greater manufacturing capacity of carbons in Great Britain. Why is that to be done? I am no expert on this matter, but I am informed, rightly or wrongly, that the type of carbons necessary for military or naval use is not of that refinement or delicacy which is necessary, for example, for cinema reflection or for the use of violet rays in hospitals or for photo-engraving purposes, and that therefore the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Ministry are well able to provide themselves with adequate carbons from the present British supply. If that be not so, I assume that, whenever the Minister winds up the Debate, the Government will inform us of it.
    I should like to turn from that to the cinematograph. The hon. Gentleman has stated in very emphatic language that for all purposes, including hospitals, photo-engraving and cinematographs, the British carbons are fully equal to the foreign, and he chided my hon. Friend for endeavouring, as he said, to depreciate British industry, and trying to show in this House that the foreign manufacturer was, in fact, making an article preferred by users in this country. I acquit, of course, the hon. Gentleman of all attempt to mislead the House, but I have even now after this agitation, which has only been going on for 24 hours, such a mass of written evidence in my possession to the contrary, that I cannot help believing that it was a mis-statement. For example—I leave cinematographs for the moment and will return to them later—I have here a letter, to which my hon. Friend referred, from the largest users of these carbons in the electric photo-printing trade. It is addressed to their suppliers. They say, after some preliminary observations:
    "We have a great desire to buy a British product and have gone out of our way to help the manufacturers of British-made carbons, but not at any time have we found a British carbon in any way equal to the Siemens carbons. Some 12 months ago we placed a contract with a British manufacturer but received so many complaints from our clients that we had to cancel this contract and return to the Siemens carbon. It will be nothing short of a tragedy to the engineering photo printing departments throughout this country if they are to be

    1937
    dependent upon British-made carbons. It it becomes necessary for us to have to notify the engineering firms that they cannot purchase the Siemens carbons except at a tremendously high price, there will be a very serious outcry against this embargo."
    These are not irresponsible people. They are not Members of the House of Commons, but people who are vitally interested in this question. Their bread and butter depend upon it. They are not, perhaps, so immediately and vitally interested as the registered importers, who have already dismissed their men and shut down their firms and are preparing to go into bankruptcy, but they are, at any rate, largely dependent upon this source of supply for a raw material. They have found it impossible—and I have a stack of letters here from perfectly reputable firms saying precisely the same thing—to get the article which they require. Even though this very high duty has been in force for such a long time, the stimulus of the duty has not promoted its manufacture in this country.
    The same argument applies to cinematographs. The Parliamentary Secretary was very scornful about my hon. Friend's reference to the cinematograph trade, but I am informed this afternoon that the managing director of a group of Manchester cinemas, 48 in number, has telephoned, first of all, his astonishment because he was not informed of this projected tax and knew nothing about the application for it, and, secondly, his dismay. I have letters from individual cinema proprietors, first of all deprecating the duty on the ground that it will put up the price of this article, and, secondly, saying in every case that in spite of their endeavours to obtain an equivalent article of home manufacture they have been totally unable to do so. In the face of that evidence, which I am willing to show to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes, I cannot understand how he can stand up at that Box and say that, to his knowledge, the British carbon is in every respect as good as the imported one. It simply is not so.
    He gave a very impressive list of hospitals which he said were all already using British carbons. But for what purposes are those hospitals using them? It really is idle to say that every purpose in a hospital for which a carbon is used is the same purpose, or that you need the same carbons for every possible use. It
    1938
    is not so. If the hon. Gentleman would make inquiries of those hospitals again he would find that, although there is no doubt that he is perfectly right in saying that in every case they are using British carbons, in every case they are using, for special work, a proportion of foreign carbons, for the simple reason that no British carbon is manufactured which will meet their convenience.
    We do not expect or hope that at this stage the Chancellor of the Exchequer will withdraw or modify this duty, but there is a long interval now between the Report stage of these Resolutions and the introduction of the Finance Bill. I hope, at any rate, that he will assure the House this afternoon that before coming to the Finance Bill he will make further inquiries. We who have made inquiries into this subject have ground for believing that the reasons upon which he has founded this duty are not good reasons. I am certain that he thinks that they are good reasons, otherwise he would not have introduced the duty; but it is possible even for the Treasury to make mistakes. It is possible, especially when acting, as it must act, in secret and without inquiry, for the Treasury not to become acquainted with the views of all those who are interested in a specific trade. I think it would, at any rate, ease the minds of hon. Members if he would say in his reply, if he is going to reply, that before incorporating the new duty in the Finance Bill founded upon this Resolution, he will receive at any rate a deputation representative of individuals who are users in this country.
    5.52 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the last observation of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, he is, of course, correct in saying that there is now some interval between the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions and the introduction of the Finance Bill. During that interval it will be possible for persons, or firms, or concerns or institutions who are interested in this subject to make representations to the Board of Trade and to give any fresh information which may not have reached the Board of Trade, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend the President, or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, will gladly listen to anything which they may say to them, and will weigh up the im-

    1939
    portance of any fresh considerations which may be put before them. But I would like to try to put to the House one or two points which seem to me to arise out of the last two speeches to which we have listened. It does not seem to be quite adequately appreciated, I think, that the duties in the case of these carbons are not in the same category as the bulk of the duties which make up the general tariff. The House is aware that the duty was originally placed upon the importation of these carbons because they were considered to be a key industry. Therefore that means that the duty was not put upon the imports in order to provide revenue or for economic reasons; it was put on for reasons of national interest connected with the defence of the country.
    That is the major reason which has influenced the Government all through in considering what modifications from time to time should be made of the duties upon these carbons. It is a fact that in addition to their use for certain purposes outside the defence of the country there are quite a large number of other uses of the carbons, and it is impossible to protect adequately what I may call the key industry side, the vital side of these productions, without affecting to some extent the other productions in which they are used commercially. Nevertheless, in this particular case a good deal of trouble has been taken to make sure that those interests should not suffer. My hon. Friend has already informed the House that joint application has been made not only by the manufacturers, but also by the principal users of these carbons for commercial purposes, namely, the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association. Of course, there may be individuals who disagree with what the body representative of their industry thinks or says, and who therefore try to make their representations. But though we cannot please everybody, I think that we are entitled to take an association of that kind, generally speaking, as representative of the trade.
    There is one other point which I should like to make. The duty originally was an ad valorem duty. In its first form it was an ad valorem duty put on, I think, in 1921. In 1926 the whole of the key industries were revised, and the Com-
    1940
    mittee which reported upon the survey which they then made of the key industries reported that the ad valorem duty had not been effective for the purpose for which it was imposed, and they stated that in the light of it there should be a specific duty of 1s. a lb., which is the duty which has existed ever since. I would call attention to the fact that even in 1926 the Committee expressed the view that 1s. a lb. might not be found in operation to be effective for the purpose, so they anticipated even then that it might be necessary later on to raise the duty. But the factor which has really made the greatest difference is that the nature of these carbons has changed in the years which have elapsed since 1926. The value of these carbons is now much greater per unit of weight than it was in 1926, and, therefore, since the value per unit of weight has gone up while the specific duty has remained the same, it will be seen that the ad valorem effectiveness of the duty has continually decreased. That, I think, is the reason why it has been felt now that the duty ought to be increased again.
    It has been suggested that this is a matter which should have been referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but I think that the House will appreciate that, when the principal factors in deciding upon the duty at all are not those which are effective in the ordinary case of a duty, when it is a question of defence, it is really not an appropriate matter for the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. In the case of the Silk Duties to which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) referred, the matter is quite different. There the Silk Duties were originally out of the purview of the Advisory Committee because they had been Revenue duties before, but when that great complicated industry complained, as they did, and not without reason, that they, almost alone among the textile industries, were not allowed to have the benefits of protection which were extended to other branches of the industry, it was felt that we might properly refer that matter to the Advisory Committee, pointing out to them that, in any consideration of recommendations, they must bear in mind always the question of Revenue, which was so important in the case of the Silk Duties.

    1941
    There are no considerations of that kind in the case of this particular duty. The main feature of it is the defence side. What we have to do is to try our best to see that other interests do not suffer, and in obtaining from the manufacturers an assurance that the price will not be raised, we have, I think, protected them on that side.
    It is true, as the hon. Member says, that British manufacturers can produce carbons as good as those made in any foreign country. Exactly the same was said about dyes, and it is perfectly true. The Germans for a long time had been developing the process and they started with an advantage with which it was impossible for British manufacturers to catch up at once, but, given a certain amount of protection, our experience has been that British manufacturers do not take long before they make themselves as efficient as any of their foreign competitors. I am prepared to admit that there might be some temporary inconvenience in certain particular lines of these carbons when it is more difficult to get them from
    abroad, but I am sure it will pass away and that presently the consumers of carbons in this country will get just as good products from British manufacturers, in every line, as they can get from abroad.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: The whole of the carbons, so far as we are informed, for the Admiralty and War Office are already made in this country. Is that so?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood the statement was that they were made by one firm. I have made special inquiries, and I am assured that the Defence Services feel that it is most important they should have in this country a sufficiently strong industry in this line to be able to expand rapidly in time of emergency and they consider that as long as there is this large importation of foreign carbons coming in, we cannot expect this country to be sufficiently safeguarded if we should require, suddenly, a large supply of carbons.
    Question put, "That '5s. 0d.' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 237, Noes, 54.

    Division No. 214.]

    AYES.

    [6.4 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Albery, Irving James

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Actor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Hales, Harold K.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hartland, George A.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Cross, R. H.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Blindell, James

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Hornby, Frank

    Borodale, Viscount

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Boulton, W. W.

    Denville, Alfred

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Dunglass, Lord

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Eales, John Frederick

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Elmley, Viscount

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Knight, Holford

    Buchan, John

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Leckie, J. A.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Burnett, John George

    Fermoy, Lord

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Levy, Thomas

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lewis, Oswald

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Carver, Major William H.

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Christie, James Archibald

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Clarke, Frank

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mabane, William

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Penny, Sir George

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Stevenson, James

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Stones, James

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Potter, John

    Storey, Samuel

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Radford, E. A.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Maitland, Adam

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Ray, Sir William

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Rickards, George William

    Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Train, John

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Tree, Ronald

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdaie

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Scone, Lord

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Both well)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Munro, Patrick

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Windsor-Olive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    North, Edward T.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Nunn, William

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Withers, Sir John James

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Soper, Richard

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Spens, William Patrick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Pearson, William G.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Captain Austin Hudson and Major

    George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Banfield, John William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Bernays, Robert

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cape, Thomas

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cocks Frederick Seymour

    Janner, Barnett

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Cave, William G.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dobbie, William

    Leonard, William

    Wilmot, John

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McGovern, John

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Mr. Walter Rea and Mr. Harcourt

    Johnstone.

    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 53.

    Division No. 215.]

    AYES.

    [6.14 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Blindell, James

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Albery, Irving James

    Borodale, Viscount

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Cazalet, Theima (Islington, E.)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Clarke, Frank

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Buchan, John

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Burnett, John George

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Leckie, J. A.

    Rickards, George William

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Levy, Thomas

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Runge, Norak Cecil

    Cross, R. H.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Denville, Alfred

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Dickie, John P.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Drew, Cedric

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Scone, Lord

    Dunglass, Lord

    Mabane, William

    Selley, Harry R.

    Eales, John Frederick

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Smithers, Waldron

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Maitland, Adam

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Soper, Richard

    Fermoy, Lord

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Mason, Col. Glyn K (Croydon, N.)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Stevenson, James

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Stones, James

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Train, John

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Tree, Ronald

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Munro, Patrick

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Hartland, George A.

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    North, Edward T.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nunn, William

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Hornby, Frank

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Pearson, William G.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Penny, Sir George

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Wise, Alfred R.

    James, Wing Com. A. W. H.

    Potter, John

    Withers, Sir John James

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Karr, Hamilton W.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Knight, Holford

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Ray, Sir William

    and Major George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Batey, Joseph

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Buchanan, George

    Janner, Barnett

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cape, Thomas

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnese)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dobbie, William

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McGovern, John

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Cross) and the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) have on the Paper an Amendment, the exact meaning of which I would like them to explain. It appears to me that it would have the effect of ante-dating the date of operation of the duty.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: The effect of the Amendment would not be to antedate the operation of the duty, because I understand that so far from the Import Duties Advisory Committee having recommended the duty, they have not yet done so. Therefore the Amendment would apply to the future and not to the past.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member move the Amendment?
    6.23 p.m.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out "the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four," and to insert:
    "a date when the approval of the Import Duties Advisory Committee may have been obtained."
    My satisfaction at the drubbing which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) just now upon the Third Resolution was somewhat reduced by the fact that I had to move this Amendment upon the Fourth Resolution. This Amendment has been put on the Paper in order to secure an explanation of what appears to be a rather unfortunate state of affairs. What happened was this: In the early part of last year the United Tanners' Federation applied to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increase of from 10 to 15 per cent. in the duty upon imported patent leather. The application was opposed by the Federation of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers and by the Rossendale Valley Association, who between them represent about 80 per cent. of the whole industry. The application was heard and was rejected. The manufacturing trade thereupon assumed naturally that the last had been heard, at least for the immediate future, of any increase in the duty, and they made their plans accordingly. They were astonished, to put it mildly, when in this year's Budget they found the duty put up to
    1948
    the very figure which had not been recommended by the Committee.
    There are two points I wish to make arising out of that. First, there is no question here, as there was on the last Resolution we have discussed, of any complaints against duties qua duties. Nor am I going to argue the merits or demerits of the application. It is, however, relevant to remark that at the present time the boot and shot manufacturing trade is giving employment to something like 105,000 operatives, and the industry which produces in this country patent leather of various kinds, japanned, enamelled and varnished, is giving employment now to something like 1,000 people. There are no complaints about tariffs in general. All the complaint is that someone must have been very gravely at fault in allowing an inquiry to be carried out before the Import Duties Advisory Committee when in point of fact the subject into which they were inquiring had already been settled and finally settled in another place. It is to secure the ventilation of that difficulty and grievance that this Amendment is moved, and in order, furthermore, to re-establish that confidence in the functioning of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that industry has hitherto had and which might be shaken if this sort of thing were to happen again.
    Mr. CROSS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to associate myself with the remarks which my hon. and gallant Friend has made with regard to this new import duty on patent leather. I understand that the object of the duty is to grant a preference to the Canadian tanners of patent leather, but my complaint is that no reciprocal advantage whatever is being obtained for the manufacturers in this country. In my own division I have a very large number of manufacturers of light shoes and slippers who are large users of patent leather, and they constitute a very important section of the trade. But this new duty is being put on at the very time when one of the biggest firms in that division has had to withdraw its representative from Canada because it is no longer possible to sell light shoes and slippers in the Canadian market owing to the great increase in Canadian tariffs

    1949
    in recent years. So that not only is the industry at this moment being given no advantage in return for this burden which has been put upon it, but it is actually being put at a disadvantage by the Canadians who are to benefit from this tariff.
    I think that the manufacturers rightly and properly expect when an arrangement of this kind is made, that they should be given some quid pro quo. In this case it seems to me that all the quids are going to the Canadian tanner, and that there is no quo for the British manufacturer. I should like to put to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade a question which might take the form of a riddle, namely, "Why should the tanner have the quid?" It seems to me the sort of inverted practice which one might expect from hon. Members opposite rather than from my hon. Friends below me. I hope that my hon. Friend will answer this specific question and that, in doing so, he will be able to give an assurance that if British manufacturers are put at some disadvantage they will, at the same time, have some corresponding advantage to offset it.
    6.31 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I desire to associate myself with this Amendment, and I do not see why any hesitancy should be shown in bringing it forward, merely because, in the opinion of any hon. Members opposite, someone may have received a drubbing in the preceding Debate. I would put my position on the matter in this way. When an effort, such as my hon. Friend on this side referred to, has been made to put matters of this description outside politics, why should the machinery brought into existence for that purpose be superseded in this case? Why should definite political action be taken in order to circumvent—using that word with certain qualifications—a decision arrived at by the Import Duties Advisory Committee? I listened with interest to the statement of the Chancellor with regard to certain items previously discussed here and the suggestion that the question of national defence arose in connection with those matters, and that that permitted the Government to go past the decision of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. In so far as patent leather is concerned, I do not think that factor enters into consideration.
    1950
    In order to give hon. Members an illustration of what is being done, I would like to refer briefly to the investigation which took place before the Advisory Committee in regard to this matter. There was opposition to the application, not only in writing but verbally, by people who were competent to understand all the details of the trade. The boot and shoe operatives made a very effective case and I think it will be agreed that on this subject they knew something of what they were talking about. They strongly asserted that the British products could not be guaranteed to meet requirements in this country, either with regard to quality or what was Very important with regard to quantity, and they expressed the fear that if the Committee acceded to the request which was put before them, the patent leather industry would be inclined to build up behind the further protection afforded to it, solely at the expense of the users of the commodity in this country. They rightly made a strong point with regard to the Empire point of view that Empire claims and rights had been met, because it was shown that the imports from Canada had increased very rapidly since the 10 per cent. preference bad been granted, and that there was the capacity for further advance in that respect. They argued, therefore, that from the Empire point of view there was no need for the Advisory Committee to act as they were being requested to act.
    Assertions were made at the inquiry which I have not heard anyone refute. It must be borne in mind that half the consumption of this kind of leather is in the manufacture of boots and shoes for women and girls and it was stated that a further 5 per cent. would mean that some firms, typical of the general productive units of the country, would have to meet an additional cost of £3,000. In addition, it was stated that there was the possibility that they would be forced to lower their standards in so far as the shoes were concerned, or what was perhaps even worse, endeavour to find a substitute material. That was the case presented and on 6th April last year the Advisory Committee rejected the claim. Apparently they were of the opinion that the case presented by the boot and shoe manufacturers and other interests was so strong that they could not admit the claim which was being made

    1951
    to them. Now apparently, by other means, the further 5 per cent. which was sought then is to be added to the duty.
    I wish for information on three specific points. First, I wish to know whether by any means or any machinery this matter has again been brought before the Import Duties Advisory Committee and whether they have considered it afresh? Secondly, I wish to know whether before any recommendations were made there were any efforts by the Advisory Committee or by other representatives of the Government, to ascertain the opinion of the interests who opposed the claim in 1933? It would appear to be preposterous if this action is being taken by the Government without in some way covering the inquiry previously held as a result of which the claim was rejected. Thirdly, I would like to know whether the Government, having considered the matter, are now going behind their own impartial committee, if I may so call it, in adding another 5 per cent.?
    Reference has been made to the position of Canada. As far as the protection already afforded is concerned, details were given at the inquiry which showed that the patent leather industry was going ahead pretty swiftly without any additional protection. It was stated that the production in 1932 had been 300,000 square feet and that at the time of inquiry, about March, 1933, it was at the rate of 1,500,000 square feet with the anticipation that by June of the same year the yearly rate would be no less than 6,500,000 square feet. Special reference has been made to the question of the Canadian imports. In 1932–33 the figure was 6,000,000 square feet, and according to statements by representatives of the tanners' organisation in Canada, if necessary that could be increased to 19,000,000 square feet. Apparently they are doing very well without further protection. I ask, therefore, that we should have some reasonable explanation as to why the Government are acting as they are doing in this Resolution, when the Advisory Committee after a comprehensive inquiry only last year rejected the representations then made for a further protection which is now being afforded through another channel.
    6.38 p.m.
    Dr. BURGIN: I hope to be able to satisfy the House that the picture which
    1952
    the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) has drawn of the Government going behind the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee is inaccurate. Not only have the committee never rejected the application in the manner referred to but they found themselves unable, entirely for reasons other than those mentioned, to take cognisance of the matter within their own terms of reference. I shall deal with the subject on more general lines first. This is a proposal that an existing duty of 10 per cent. should be increased to 15 per cent. Dressed leather, apart from patent leather and glace kid, is already subject to a 15 per cent. duty at present, but patent leather is only subject to 10 per cent. The effect, I am told, of an increase from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. will be to add to the cost of patent leather at most one halfpenny per square foot. That is the calculation given to me. Patent leather, an important material no doubt in connection with the boot and shoe and other industries, has not been successfully manufactured in this country to any considerable extent. Whether that is because patent leather requires to be dried in sunshine is a matter of opinion. I am told by those who have studied the subject that a quick drying sunshine is essential to it, and that that is why so many of our imports come from Canada, the sunny parts of the United States and Southern Germany.
    Let us look for a moment at the figures. From all sources in 1933 the imports of patent, varnished, japanned and enamelled leather amounted to £750,000 sterling in value and of this, approximately half or about £368,000 worth, came from Canada, about 30 per cent. from the United States and 14 or 15 per cent. from Germany. I want the House to have the picture that half these imports came from Canada. I am told that almost all the Canadian exports are actually patent leather whereas the exports from the other countries include the other different kinds of leather to which I have referred. Why does this application come before the House in this way? Before the Ottawa Conference the United Kingdom leather industry and the Dominion leather industry had entered into discussions and on 5th July, 1932, an agreement was reached between the British leather industry and the Dominion leather industry that there

    1953
    should be a preferential rate of 15 per cent. ad valorem. That agreement was not known to the representatives of the United Kingdom in Ottawa at the time the Ottawa Agreements were made. Consequently, no increase of the duty on patent leather was made in this country. Representations have continued to be received. His Majesty's Government have received representations from the Canadian Government and have found considerable difficulty in dealing with the matter.
    Of course, an agreement between the industrialists in the two countries was not binding upon the Government, but the conclusion was reached that there could not in any circumstances be any question as to our good faith and that it was most important to consolidate the relations between the Canadian Government and this country. Very important concessions have been made by the Canadian Government, particularly in recent times, to meet the wishes of the home Government in trade matters. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Cross) asked me, "Why should the tanner have the quid?" The real question is, to whom should go the pro quo? It is not necessarily to the British boot and shoe industry, but it is meet that when substantial trade concessions have already been given by the Canadian Government to British industry as a whole, that we should honour in the fullest possible manner agreements or understandings which have been arrived at but which for some reason or through some accident in the past have not been implemented. So the proposal is to enable the agreement made between the two sets of industrialists to be fully implemented. It is thus for the benefit of Canadian industry—a benefit which, being accorded to Canada in that respect, secures benefits to British industry as a whole in other respects.
    What happened when the matter came before the Import Duties Advisory Committee? They were obliged to find on the evidence, in view of the relative smallness of the British patent leather producing industry and the very large share of that industry which was possessed by the Canadian manufacturers, that the object of this duty and of the preferential tariff was in substance not in the interests of trade and industry in the United Kingdom. They were advised,
    1954
    therefore, not to reject the application because they supported one side or the other, but they felt unable to make the Order because, under their terms of reference under the Import Duties Act, the matter did not come within their jurisdiction. In those circumstances the Government have felt it essential that any question of good faith should not be raised and that they must implement this understanding that had been arrived at. Let the House understand the position. All the imports of patent leather that come from the Dominions will, of course, not pay the increased tax, but will come in with the preference. That trade is already half the total trade, and there can be no doubt that when this tax is in full working order and the preference granted, the Canadian share of the trade will progressively tend to increase. It is in these circumstances, bearing in mind that it means at most a halfpenny per square foot, that we are implementing an understanding that has been arrived at, and that so large a percentage from the Dominions will not be taxed at all, that we ask the House to vote for the Resolution.
    6.47 p.m.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: In moving the Amendment I pointed out that I was not quarrelling with the decision of the Government or with the evidence put before the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I merely asked for an assurance that never again, if possible, should an industry be misled into submitting a case for consideration when that case is already prejudiced and indeed has been settled nearly a year before. Owing to somebody's mistake, you had a thoroughly efficient and well-organised industry that was entirely deceived as to the true situation, and I desired an assurance that sort of thing shall not occur again.
    6.48 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not think that the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary is very satisfactory. He told us that at present it is necessary for us to give substantial help to Canada because Canada is giving substantial help to British industry. I thought the picture of trade with Canada at the moment was that British trade with Canada was falling off rather rapidly and being replaced by American trade with Canada, owing to the dollar position. At least,

    1955
    when I was in Canada a fortnight ago, I was told by all Canadians whom I came across that that was the position. Therefore, it is not, as a matter of fact, the very moment when it is necessary to give Canada any very large concessions in this market.
    As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman says that we must do this because the trade interests agreed, though they did not disclose the fact, apparently, at the time of the Ottawa Agreement. I am interested to know what the trade interests are. In the evidence given before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, it was stated that there was only one firm manufacturing patent leather in this country at the period of the Ottawa Agreement. Is one firm, turning out a very small quantity indeed—300,000 square feet—to bind all the boot manufacturers in Great Britain because it chooses to enter into an agreement with the Canadian manufacturers of patent leather? Surely, it is the most fantastic suggestion that we are bound to do this, in order to honour an agreement, the only representative of Great Britain who could have made that agreement being one small firm who were manufacturing patent leather at the time.
    When the hon. Gentleman says that the Import Duties Advisory Committee had no power to do this, I suggest that that is a complete mis-statement of the fact. The Advisory Committee had every power to do it if they chose, only, on the evidence which they took, they found there was no case for doing it. It was not that they had no power to do it. On the 15th February, 1933, notice was issued by the Import Duties Advisory Committee of an application to increase the duty, and they stated that they proposed to deal with it. Written representations in opposition were handed in, they had an oral hearing on the 23rd March, at which evidence was given by both sides, an inquiry was conducted, and a number of questions were asked, and on the 6th April they communicated with the parties saying that they did not propose to make any recommendation at present with regard to the application for an additional duty on patent leather. They never said that they were not competent to undertake the inquiry. They were fully competent. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head,
    1956
    but what was there to stop them from entering on this inquiry?
    Dr. BURGIN: The point is this: The Import Duties Advisory Committee have to consider the interests of trade and industry in the United Kingdom, and if the evidence before them shows that the benefits of granting the application would go to trade and industry in the Dominion of Canada, it is outside their powers.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Really, the hon. Gentleman is making a most extraordinary statement. It is not outside their powers to hear an application at all. If the hon. Gentleman goes into a court of law and cannot produce the evidence to make his case good, it is not because the court cannot decide his case that he loses it, but because he has not been able to produce the necessary evidence to substantiate his case. That is what happened in this case. The Import Duties Advisory Committee entertained the application, and they came to the conclusion that they were unable to make any recommendation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now comes forward on the Budget and says, "Although we are bound to admit that this is not for the good of British industry, because we have not had any further inquiry and we cannot dispute what this impartial Advisory Committee has decided—we do not suggest that they were wrong; we admit that this is not for the benefit of British industry—yet because a patent leather manufacturer, at the time of the Ottawa Agreement made an arrangement with Canadian interests, of which he did not tell the Government, we are now bound, in order to implement that agreement, to put a tax on every boot and shoe manufacturer in Great Britain."
    If His Majesty's Government are reduced to the stage that they cannot resist the pressure of a single manufacturer who entered into an arrangement with some Canadians, I think it is time they got a little bit more backbone in order that they can stand up against demands of this sort, and stand up in the interests, apparently, of British industry, because this Report says that what they are now doing is contrary to those interests; and the only excuse they have for doing what they are doing is that the Canadians have been very nice and kind to us and that this manufacturer

    1957
    made an arrangement. We certainly do not think that is a good enough reason to embarrass the British export trade in shoes or the home trade in shoes, and as a result we shall vote in favour of the Amendment and against the Resolution.
    6.55 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: I am wondering what is the duty of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and how many industries with which they do not deal can come behind their backs and, through another door, get what they want. The outstanding explanation of the Government on the previous Resolution was that these carbons were necessary for defence purposes. Any Member of the Government on the Treasury Bench has only to mention that, and his supporters will agree with almost anything. Having heard the explanation of the Government on the First Resolution, I was doubly interested in their explanation on the Second Resolution, and it is not very satisfactory. There are differences of opinion between the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) as to what happened. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Import Duties Advisory Committee could not deal with this question. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol said they did deal with it, and he seemed to prove his case, but suppose we accept the hon. Member's point that they could not deal with it. Then the Government promptly deal with it themselves and give the industry what it wants because the Advisory Committee cannot.
    That seems to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. When the Import Duties Advisory Committee was set up, it was the general impression that all industries that wanted a duty of any description would have to make out a ease on its merits before this Committee, but how far are we going from that principle? We have had two cases this afternoon which have departed from the principle entirely, and in both instances the reasons adduced by the Government have been very unsatisfactory. I suggest that if this goes on, even those who believe in import duties will soon lose their
    faith in the methods that are being used in order to get them established where they cannot be established on merits. I was interested too to hear the speeches of the two hon. Members who moved the Amendment. I do not suppose carbons are made in their constituencies, because on the last Resolution they had nothing to say, and presumably they supported the Government; but, with regard to this Resolution, boots are made in their Divisions, and boot-makers are employed, and I think they fear that this duty might injure the big trades there.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: I pointed out in moving the Amendment that I was not quarrelling with what was being done at all. I was only quarrelling with the way in which it was being done, and I do not think that this duty will do any harm whatever in my division.
    Mr. PALING: I heard the hon. and gallant Member; say that he believed generally in tariffs, but it appeared from that statement that he did not believe in this particular tariff, which affected industries in his constituency.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I said nothing of the kind.
    Mr. PALING: If the hon. and gallant Member did not, I withdraw. I know he used the words "general" and "particular," and I thought that that was the deduction to be drawn, but in any event he has gone to the extent of putting down an Amendment designed to stop the coming into operation of this duty as it otherwise would do. He says it is to get the question discussed on its merits. I accept that, and he will agree with me in my criticism of the Government that to have put on this import duty in the way they have done is the wrong method, and that they would have been better advised to put it on as the hon. Members themselves asked the Government to do it.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 47.

    Division No. 216.]

    AYES.

    [7.0 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leads, W.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Albery, Irving James

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Balniel, Lord

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Pearson, William G.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Penny, Sir George

    Blindell, James

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Borodale, Viscount

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Potter, John

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Radford, E. A.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hartland, George A.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ray, Sir William

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Rickards, George William

    Burghley, Lord

    Hornby, Frank

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Burnett, John George

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Carver, Major William H.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Cassels, James Dale

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Leckie, J. A.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Scone, Lord

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Selley, Harry R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cranborne, Viscount

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    McLean, Major air Alan

    Soper, Richard

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Cross, R. H.

    Maitland, Adam

    Spens, William Patrick

    Crossley, A. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Stevenson, James

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Stones, James

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Denville, Alfred

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Dickie, John P.

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Dunglass, Lord

    Mills, Major j. D. (New Forest)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Train, John

    Elmley, Viscount

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdaie

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Munro, Patrick

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Goff, Sir Park

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Withers, Sir John James

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grimston, R. V.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    and Major George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Banfield, John William

    Halt, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cape, Thomas

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Janner, Barnett

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Cove, William G.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Dobbie, William

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    7.10 p.m.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: This House, since I have come into it, has never seen the Front Bench to less advantage than this afternoon. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, after his great display of knowledge, showed a most lamentable ignorance, and now we have this extraordinary reply that British trade is entirely to be sacrificed to the Canadian manufacturers. This is a most glaring instance of the fact that there is no limit to the greed of Canadian manufacturers and the weakness of the British Government. They have only to say that they will have a tax in this country, and this Government is the complete tool of whatever body in Canada says there shall be a tax. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, however, was unusually frank in telling us what was the reason for this tax. The fact is that for the last few years, so far from having given benefit to us, the Canadians have seized an ever larger proportion of our trade, and we seem to be getting an ever smaller proportion of theirs. Dealing particularly with patent leather, we see from the Trade and Navigation Accounts that in the last three years the United States exports have fallen from 18,000 odd cwts. to 7,000 odd cwts. and the Canadian have increased from 6,000 to 11,000. They seem to be getting a tremendous proportion of the market of
    this country, and this is to increase it still more.
    As has been said, there was a full inquiry a year ago and the Canadian claim was found to be untenable not only by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but, I believe, by the Board of Trade itself which, after full inquiry, turned down the Canadian demand as absurd in view of the figures of trade which Canadian industry was carrying on. It seems to me that there is no small connection between the inside and the outside of the cow in this matter. The Milk Board is having difficulty in raising the price of what it is pleased to call surplus milk because on account of the complete muddle at Ottawa the Canadians can send as much cheese as they like, and to correct this we have to have some blandishment to offer the Canadians in return for some voluntary self-discipline on their part. I think that the whole thing shows how one protectionist muddle leads to another, first of all the muddle at Ottawa, and then the attempt on the part of the Milk Board to raise the price of milk, successfully as some think and unsuccessfully as they think themselves, and now the further unwarranted proposals to put the matter right. I hope that the House will have nothing to do with it.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 45.

    Division No. 217.]

    AYES.

    [7.14 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Albery, Irving James

    Cassels, James Dale

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Balniel, Lord

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Blindell, James

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Borodale, Viscount

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cross, R. H.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Burghley, Lord

    Denville, Alfred

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Dickie, John P.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Burnett, John George

    Dower, Captain A. V G.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Scone, Lord

    Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Hartland, George A.

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Munro, Patrick

    Smithers, Waldron

    Hornby, Frank

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Honbrugh, Florence

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Nunn, William

    Soper, Richard

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Stevenson, James

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Stones, James

    Leckie, J. A.

    Pearson, William G.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Penny, Sir George

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence B.

    Potter, John

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    MacAndrew, Lieut. Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Train, John

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Radford, E. A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ray, Sir William

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Maitland, Adam

    Rickards, George William

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Withers, Sir John James

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    and Major George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Paling, Wilfred

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Parkinson, John Alien

    Cape, Thomas

    Janner, Barnett

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Dobbie, William

    Leonard, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wilmot, John

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    7.22 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Perhaps the House will expect a brief word of explanation of what are minor Amendments in the law but which involve no changes in the principle of the law. The Resolution, I think, may be accurately described as self-explanatory. It falls into three parts. It gives the Treasury power,
    1964
    on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, to make an Order imposing an additional duty simultaneously with the removal of goods from the Free List. At present a time has to elapse between the removal from the Free List and the Order imposing the additional duty. The second part of the Resolution is to revoke any scheme for the allowance of drawback. Curiously enough, there is no power under the law to revoke a scheme. The third part is to do the same with regard to drawbacks made under the second Schedule of the

    1965
    Import Duties Act, 1932. As will be gathered from the wording of the Resolution, it is doubtful whether any power exists to vary or revoke a drawback under that Schedule. The Resolution seeks to meet these defects in the law.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOT: I venture to rise to draw the attention of the House to some of the very unfortunate effects of this change in the standard rate of tax. I do not propose to weary the House with a repetition of the figures which I gave to the Committee when the Budget statement was under Debate. Since I gave those figures I have been astonished by the unexpected volume of correspondence which has reached me from all over the country from the class of people to whom I referred—salaried workers, clerks, shop assistants, civil servants, bank clerks and black-coated employés on salaries ranging from £200 to £500 or more a year—who feel that the method by which the Chancellor has chosen to implement a decision to distribute the major portion of the anticipated surplus by way of remission in Income Tax is not only a hardship but a gross and unjustifiable inequity. I think it will be generally agreed in all parts of the House that the more one examines the incidence of this decision, the more unjust and indefensible it becomes. I believe the sum involved is between £21,000,000 and £22,000,000, and the Chancellor decided to use that amount, the major portion of the anticipated surplus, for the purpose of reducing Income Tax.
    That could have been done by restoring the allowances which were considerably withdrawn in the emergency Budget of 1931, or it could have been done, as it has been, by reducing the standard rate of tax. On the face of it, a reduction in the standard rate of tax would appear to confer a benefit on the community as a whole, but in fact it does nothing of the kind. Such is the incidence of the complicated application of Income Tax and allowances that the only class of people who benefit materially by a reduc-
    1966
    tion in the standard rate of tax are those with incomes well above the comfort line. Incomes of £1,000 a year or more benefit most by this concession, and the curious effect of it is—an effect, I am sure, which the Chancellor would not set out to achieve—that the larger the income the larger the proportion of the sacrifices restored. Not only is it an inverted form of equity when related to the size of the income, but an inverted form when related to family responsibility. It is an accepted principle of taxation, which makes the Income Tax the best form of taxation on the whole, that it can be adjusted and has been adjusted so that family responsibility is relieved of some burden of tax.
    The effect of the Chancellor's decision to alter the standard rate of Income Tax is to give not only to the larger income the biggest share of the bounty and the biggest proportion in relation to the bulk, but to give to the smaller family a bigger proportion than to the larger family, and to give to the unmarried Income Tax payer better treatment than to the married. I do not wish to go over the figures which I placed before the Committee, but I will take one typical case, that of a family man with three children and an earned income of £500 a year. That man's total Income Tax was increased by the emergency Budget of 1931 from £3 4s. to £15, an increase of £11 16s. a year. Of that increased contribution to the crisis which was said to exist, all that is restored to that family, which is having a very hard time in existing circumstances, is a paltry 30s. But take the case of a married man with three children who is earning £2,000 a year. He gets a restoration of £33 of his increased tax. It was our complaint when the increased taxation was imposed that by withdrawing a large proportion of the allowances the Government imposed a heavier tax on the poorer and a lighter tax on the richer. That injustice was allowed to remain. Now the Chancellor is perpetrating a double injustice, in that having victimised these people when he applied the extra taxation he victimises them again when he removes it. It is remarkable that a family with £500 a year should get only 15 per cent. of its sacrifice restored, while a family with £2,000 a year gets more than 60 per cent. of its sacrifice restored.

    1967
    The allowances to which I have referred are the allowances in respect of earned income, of marriage and of children; but there is another form of differentiation between the larger and the smaller incomes which seems to have escaped notice altogether. The Chancellor was good enough to answer a question which I put to him on, Tuesday. I asked him what it would have cost to restore the allowances instead of reducing the standard rate of tax. He said it would have cost £26,000,000. There is a comparatively small difference between the cost of restoring those allowances and thus conferring the major boon on the poorest section of taxpayers and the cost of the course which the Chancellor has chosen to take. In answering my question the Chancellor referred to the alteration in the earned Income Tax allowance. That alteration, taken side by side with the alteration in the amount of taxable income taxed at the reduced rate, was strongly in favour of the Exchequer and strongly against the individual. Pre-1913, under the old rates, five-ninths of the standard rate of tax was charged on the first £250 of taxable income. Under the 1931 Budget, half of the standard rate of tax was charged on the first £175 of taxable income. That apparently unimportant alteration, in addition to the withdrawal of the allowances which I have referred to, imposed still further burdens on this particular class of taxpayers.
    It is most remarkable that the Chancellor having laid it down in his Budget Speech that the principle which was to guide him in disposing of his surplus was that the sacrifice should be restored as far as possible in the proportion in which it had been made, should have chosen the one way which would do exactly the opposite. I feel that that class in the community has a grievance against the method which the Chancellor has chosen. I noticed in the Debate on the Budget that hon. Members on the other side of the House put forward one after another a plea that the Chancellor should use his surplus to restore the allowances rather than reduce the standard rate of tax. My own view is that there are other claims which come before those of the Income Tax payers. I
    1968
    thought the Chancellor would have implemented the promise which he made, even at the beginning of his speech, to distribute his surplus to those who had contributed it, first of all to the unemployed, then to the wage and salary earners, next to the poorest taxpayers and that then, if there was anything left, the comfortably off, the people who, after all, have not felt the pinch of poverty as a result of national events, should receive the balance after these more pressing claims had been satisfied.
    I do not know whether the Chancellor really appreciates the full magnitude of this injustice. One hon. Member showed me the other night some figures which had been worked out which actually demonstrated that every extra child in a family meant extra taxation to pay. Surely that is an anomaly which cannot be allowed to continue; this House would be false to its trust to those whom it represents if it permitted it to remain. But I anticipate that the Chancellor, in his reply, will either plead the same argument that he did the other day or fall back upon a second statement which he made that he had to have regard not only to the effect on the individual, but to the effect on the trade and prosperity of the country as a whole. If it were true that the method he has chosen will have a better effect on the prosperity of the nation than any other, that would be a reason to be seriously taken into account; but I submit with the greatest respect that the effect is the exact opposite.
    What is most needed to stimulate industrial recovery at the present time is that those on the borderline of poverty shall be enabled to purchase more goods. Nothing is more rapidly reflected in improved trade and employment than an increase in the family income of the wage and salary earning classes. They go to the shops, they immediately expend their slightly augmented incomes in buying goods, and there is at once a reflection in greater trade and greater employment. That is not so when the bounty is distributed in the main to the wealthy classes. I think it would be right to say that people with incomes round about £2,000 a year have not, in the main, suffered a reduction of purchasing power. What they have suffered is a reduction in the surplus available for investment.

    1969
    The times are exceptional, but if one views the requirements of the nation as a whole it will be seen that we are not suffering from a shortage of investable capital, but that, owing to the lack of demand for goods, capital cannot find profitable sources of investment. The banks have record deposits, but are unable to find solvent borrowers; solvent borrowers are few because trade is scarce; and trade is scarce because the ordinary people, who make up the bulk of the population, are unable to buy the things they need.
    Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about the record of investments, held by the banks, of that class of the community whom he has referred to as very depressed, the community earning between £500 and £2,000 a year?
    Mr. WILMOT: I do not quite follow the hon. Member when he speaks of the investments held by the banks.
    Mr. PIKE: The investments of persons earning between £500 and £2,000 a year.
    Mr. WILMOT: Obviously, the banks have no records, nor would they publish them if they had them, of the individual holdings of investments of their customers. The hon. Member must know very well that those figures are not available. But it is obvious that the £250 a year clerk or the £200 a year civil servant has not, after he has paid his rent and maintained his family, got a very large margin with which to acquire large holdings of investments to deposit with the banks. Such a person is concerned with keeping the wolf from the door and maintaining that appearance which it is necessary for him to maintain if he is to keep his source of livelihood at all. It is this class of the community, the small Income Tax payers, people who were brought under Income Tax for the first time in 1931, whose incomes previously had been regarded as so inadequate that it was not in the national interest that they should be asked to contribute to direct taxation, which is now, in proportion to its income—together with the working people, on still lower incomes—contributing the highest share of taxation in indirect taxation.
    It is one of the unfortunate effects of the policy of His Majesty's Government at the present time that every year that goes by sees the contribution of the
    1970
    poorest people increased in proportion to their income. I suggest to the Chancellor that, difficult as it may be to make an alteration of this kind at this stage, the difficulty is not insuperable. Fortunately the amount involved in restoring the allowances is very near to the amount involved in reducing the standard rate of tax. If he saw fit, between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill, the Chancellor could adjust the incidence of this taxation so that the poorer people would benefit and not the well-to-do. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that if the Chancellor really has the interests of equity at heart and desires to use his surplus not only with some measure of justice but in the manner which will benefit in the most direct form the trade and the employment of the country, he should realise that the decision which he made is not only very unpopular but is also indefensibly unjust, and that he should reverse that decision and distribute the remission of Income Tax to those whose poverty and low incomes entitle them to the first claim.
    7.47 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The Motion before us brings us entirely in opposition to hon. Members on the Government benches. We stand for direct taxation as against indirect taxation. The Income Tax reduction increases indirect taxation as against direct taxation, and once more we are trying to prove to the House of Commons why that kind of thing should be altered. Only to-day I obtained figures from the Financial Secretary in order to try to prove that point. I asked for figures from 1923 to the present time showing the proportion of direct to indirect taxation. In order to take two extreme points, I specified the years 1924 and 1925, which show that direct taxation had then arrived at 66.93 per cent. of the total taxation, and that indirect taxation stood at 33.07. The proportion has fluctuated since that time, and indirect taxation has gradually risen until last year the proportion was 60.28 direct and 39.72 indirect. To be sure of my ground in regard to the financial position, I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question on Monday last in regard to the present taxation, and I received final figures showing the position when this year's Finance Bill will have passed into law. They are, direct taxa-

    1971
    tion 58.8, and indirect taxation 41.2. It would appear that the National Government are reversing that for which we have stood all along the line. I believe that direct taxation should be 90 per cent. against 10 per cent. indirect taxation; certain commodities can hardly be taken out of the list. The National Government seem to want to arrive at 50-50; that is what I assume to be the aim which they have in view, because that is the drift of the present Budget. The plea which is put forward many times from the Government benches is that those who pay direct taxation ought to pay indirect taxation to some extent. That argument is worth examining. The ordinary household with an income of between £2 and £3 per week has to buy certain commodities which absorb the whole of their money. Those commodities are covered by indirect taxation, but there may be no comparison with the position of the rich. I assume that rich people buy very much the same kind of food as the poor, but no comparison can be made in regard to the effect upon their income.
    I have been interested in finding out how the surplus was arrived at. To-day I asked a question bearing upon what the workers had paid in another form, and I tried to get figures of their contributions to the Unemployment Fund. At the time of the national emergency, when Income Tax was increased and other people had to pay something more, the insured person had to pay more to the Unemployment Fund. We must not overlook the fact that we raised the workers' contribution then from 7d. to 10d., and that since October, 1931, they have been contributing a larger proportion of that burden.
    The figures which I obtained show the amount which has been paid into the Unemployment Fund since the contributions were increased. Since October, 1931, and until March of this year, the total amount of extra contribution has been £37,000,000. The employers have contributed this year £9,850,000, but the workers, who have paid 3d. as against 2d., have paid £14,800,000. The workers who are now shouldering the greater burden of indirect taxation have also contributed a greater proportion to the surplus than have any other section of the people.
    1972
    Reckoning it out in yearly income, and estimating about £15,000,000 for two and a-half years, they have paid £6,000,000 per annum. They already pay more than anybody else for the necessaries of life, yet at the same time they have to contribute £6,000,000 per annum on top of that to the Unemployment Fund, as the result of what was put on by the extra taxation of 1931.
    We are trying to be fair and to equalise the burden which was put upon the community in that year. Greater regard ought to be given to the workers, from the lowest section up to a certain point. We are not proposing that anything undeserved should be given to those people, but only to pay back to them something that they gave in 1931. The argument would be, "We took from these people, as we did from everybody else, a certain amount of money in 1931, and we are only returning that, so why complain? We took extra Income Tax in 1931 and increased the standard rate to 5s.; we will make it 4s. 6d. We are putting back the cuts, so why should there be any complaint on the part of the Income Tax payers?" That would be a fair argument. If we were putting back everybody else's cuts, one could argue upon that, but the Chancellor has not done that. I question whether the workers will ever get back the extra taxation which has been put upon their shoulders, and we should be very unwise to allow this Resolution to pass without raising our voices in protest.
    Many of the advocates of Income Tax reduction would have been here if the 6d. had not been taken off. The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) and the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) have been bothering on every occasion about the lowering of the Income Tax, but they are missing today. They are leaving their case in the hands of the Government. By this Budget, the Government have seen their way to back up the Income Tax payer more than anybody else. [An HON. MEMBER: "The big ones."] Yes, the big ones have seen to it. I do not know whether the Government will depend upon the big ones at the next general election. I hope that the workers are taking notice of what is happening now, and that they will pay due regard to the

    1973
    fact that the Government have only been class-conscious, and have only acted in one way.
    7.55 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I want to follow the line of argument which was taken by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), who has recently been in touch with the electorate. The Chancellor has introduced this reduction of 6d. in the standard rate of Income Tax as part of a policy which he described as one of equivalent restoration to those classes who made sacrifices during the national emergency in 1931. I want to call attention to certain figures which show more forcibly than any words could how that principle actually works out, unaccompanied, as the restoration of the 6d. has been, by any restoration of the cuts which took place in that year in the allowances for children and other dependants. The figures are very curious and striking. To make quite sure that they should be correct, I have had them confirmed by a firm of accountants who specialise in obtaining Income Tax rebates. I shall only trouble the House with certain figures from the table.
    Take the class with earned incomes of £500. A single man without dependants had his tax raised by the emergency Budget of 1931 by £21; he gets back £5 6s. I am leaving out the pence. Roughly, that is one quarter of his sacrifice. A man with the same earned income of £500, but with a wife and three children to support, contributed an increase of £11 17s. additional taxation; he gets back £1 10s., or one-eighth of the sacrifice. If he has been rash enough to have five children, he gave £5 in 1931 and he gets back 10s., or one-tenth of the sacrifice. Next take the £750 class. They come off slightly better. The single man gave extra taxation of £24: 2s.; he gets back £10 6s., or slightly under one-half. A married man with the same income and three children gave £34 2s. and gets back £5 16s., slightly over one-sixth. A married man with the same income but with five children gave £24 2s. and gets back £3 16s., or slightly under one-sixth.
    Now turn to the Super-tax payer with an earned income of £2,000. The Chancellor's scheme is much more generous to him. The single man with no dependants gave extra taxation in 1931 of
    1974
    £46; he gets back £37 16s., or slightly over four-fifths of his sacrifice. If the man with the same income has three children, he gave £57 5s. and gets back £33 6s.; nearly three-fifths. If he has five children he gave £59 15s., and he gets back £31 6s. Take the highest and the lowest of those figures. The man with an earned income of £500 per year, with a wife and five children, gets back one-tenth of his sacrifice. If a man is single, with no dependants, and he has an income of £2,000 a year, he gets back four-fifths of what he gave. As it is easier to grasp figures when one sees them, I have had them set out in tables and I should be glad to give to any Member of the House, or to the Press, copies of the statement showing the figures, so that they can see for themselves the figures of the intermediate groups.
    We are told that this is part of a policy of equivalence of sacrifice and equivalence of restoration. If so, it is a curious application of that principle. The unemployed man gets back the whole of his cut in benefit, and nobody grudges him that, because, as I hope to show on another occasion, when it will be in order, as it would not be to-night, even the restoration of the whole of that cut leaves an unemployed man with the moderate-sized family of three or five children far below the level of primary poverty, if he has nothing but his unemployment benefit to live on. A man in the Civil Service gets back half of his salary cuts, and no one grudges him that, while the small Income Taxpayer if he comes in one of the lower grades, and has the heavy burden of a wife and five children to support, gets back only one-tenth of his sacrifice.
    I should like to remind the House that this particular type of man, the middle Class Income Taxpayer, with burdens of family dependants, is very hard hit in other ways. There is no unemployment insurance for him. The attention of the country has been drawn a good deal lately in the Press to the hard case of the blackcoated unemployed man. He has helped to pay for the unemployment insurance system, but he gets nothing from it. If he is in desperate distress, he has not even the chance of resorting to the newly set up Unemployment Assistance Board. The Poor Law is not considered good enough for the agricul-

    1975
    tural labourer or the domestic servant, but it is judged to be good enough for the unemployed middle class taxpayer.
    There has been a committee set up lately to try and press the claims of the children of the nation in a share of the nation's prosperity. As one who has been chairman of the committee, which has the support of a great majority of societies in this country especially interested in the welfare of children, I have to confess that not only have we apparently failed to make any impression upon the mind of the Government, but the children seem to have been especially left out throughout this Budget. I have shown that no special help has been given to the children of the unemployed. We can only hope that in the later stages of the Finance Bill, or when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a little more of a surplus to spare, he will find time to remember the burden that rests upon those who are bearing the expense of rearing the future generation.
    8.4 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Those of us who take objection to the effect of this Resolution are in somewhat of a difficulty by reason of the Rules of the House. If we moved to reduce the rate of tax we should be defeating our own purpose, because we believe in maintaining the rate of direct taxation at the old level. If we move the deletion of the paragraph, then there will be no direct taxation whatsoever, and the last case will be worse than the first. Therefore, we are reduced to speaking against the Resolution in order to put our point of view.
    In the course of the Budget discussion I made some remarks which are worth recalling, and from a personal point of view I must recall them. I made the point, as other speakers have done to-night, that the abatement of the incidence of direct taxation at this stage is an occasion which, even if we take the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in its favour, will not produce the same benefit for the country as the form of action which we should take. That is to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has £21,000,000 or £22,000,000 with which to play, if I may use that expression, and we suggest that by using that money in other directions he could
    1976
    provide much greater benefit for the nation at large, and to trade in particular, than he will from the form of the Resolution which we are discussing. I will return to that point later.
    I should like to refer to a passage in my speech of a week ago, because there was some little controversy about it. I used a phrase to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took exception. I said that the Government had given pledges that they would restore, first of all, the cuts upon unemployment benefit, and the cuts in pay. That was controverted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Later, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), took part in the Debate and, speaking as a member of the Government of 1931, used these words:
    "There never was any promise on the part of the Government of that day that any of the burdens which had been imposed at that time should have precedence of any other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1934; col. 998, Vol. 288.]
    If I remember aright, the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated his assent to what the right hon. Member for Darwen said. We shall have plenty of opportunity for controversy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer later on, and perhaps we had better keep the atmosphere as sweet as possible. Having made some researches since, I think my statement was rather an exaggeration. I do not think that I was quite justified in using the word "first," indicating that the restoration in cuts of unemployment benefit and of cuts in pay would take precedence. Even so, accepting the statement of the right hon. Member for Darwen, I still assert that the Government have, in point of fact, gone back upon what was generally understood to be the position of the Government of that day. There is in this Budget precedence given, and if that is to be accepted as being the ground of controversy I think we have a right to argue in support of that proposition.
    What are the facts? There is a restoration of 6d. in the £ on direct taxation to the direct taxpayers. That restoration takes place as from the 1st April. There is also a restoration of pay cuts and unemployment benefit cuts. But the restoration of unemployment benefit cuts takes place on the 1st July, and the restoration of the pay cuts, which is only in respect of one half of the cut

    1977
    imposed in 1931 also takes place from the 1st July. It is argued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and supporters of the Government that one of the grounds of justification for the restoration of the 6d. to the Income Tax payers on the 1st April—and it is put forward as mitigation of the offence, if offence it be—that the direct taxpayer was mulcted in the 5s. in the £ Income Tax in April, 1931. That is true. I admit that the direct taxpayers were involved six months before the special Budget of September, 1931, but let me recall to the Financial Secretary another side of the proposition. Take the teachers as a case in point. We have heard a good deal of what are called Burnham Scale as applied to teachers. In point of fact, those scales have never yet been enjoyed by teachers all over the country. I believe I am well within the truth when I say that large numbers of teachers were suffering a cut of from 15 to 20 per cent. only off the Burnham Scale. May I also remind the House that not only had the teachers a cut in their salaries in September, 1931, but there was a consequential effect of that cut.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I rather think the hon. Member's argument had better be directed to the Estimates of the Board of Education. We are now dealing with Income Tax.
    Mr. JONES: With great respect, I am trying to show the incidence of the cut of 1931. The point that I am now making is directly involved in that. There has been priority in giving the abatement of 6d. to the direct taxpayers over and above other people who were similarly mulcted in cuts in 1931. If I am allowed to make my point a little further, the relevance of my argument will be seen. Teachers were involved in a out in salaries in 1931. But it is also true that their pensions were fixed upon the average salary enjoyed by them in the last five years of their active life as teachers, and teachers who have retired since 1931 will carry permanently throughout their lives the effect of the cut imposed upon them in 1931, by reason of reduced pension. On what ground does the Chancellor of the Exchequer argue that there is no priority, seeing what has happened in regard to the teachers, a section of whom will carry with them to the end of their lives
    1978
    in the form of reduced pensions the effect of the cut imposed upon them in 1931, while those still remaining in the profession will only have restored to them from the 1st July next one-half of the pay cut which they suffered two and a half years ago. Even accepting the statement of the position as it was put by the right hon. Member for Darwen, that there was no priority promised, I submit that the Government have failed to redeem what was well understood to be the intention of the Government in 1931. So far as I understand the position, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken very great care to keep the door open in regard to the future. I do not know what classes of people he had in mind, but let me read his words:
    "The fact is that the cuts in the rates of unemployment payments and in salaries, and the additional taxation which was imposed at that time, were considered by the Government of the day as a temporary expedient to meet a temporary emergency."
    And then follow these somewhat ominous words:
    "They were accepted by the people of this country in that spirit. I do not myself interpret that understanding so literally as to feel compelled to put everything; back exactly where it was before 1931."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1934; col. 921, Vol. 288.]
    I do not know what classes of servants the right hon. Gentleman had in mind when he made that reservation. Having read that statement with some misgiving, I read this later statement of the right hon. Gentleman last Thursday night with very much greater pleasure:
    "I would further say that, disappointing as it may be to the Opposition to find that we have put aside entirely all party conceptions, all class conceptions, and have simply made an effort in this Budget to restore as equally and as fairly as possible among those who suffered in 1931 what there is to distribute, at any rate to those who did make that contribution our action implies this further undertaking, that, if they have not had this year the whole of their sacrifices made up to them, they still remain with the first claim on our consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1934; col. 1265, Vol. 288.]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that we are not discussing the Budget on this occasion.
    Mr. JONES: I accept your Ruling, and I do not want to carry the discussion any further, beyond saying, if I may, that

    1979
    even that observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not seem to cover what we regard as the means test position.
    Suppose that the Chancellor has £21,000,000 or £22,000,000 to play with, is this the best way of doing it, or is there another and better way? While we on this side take no special pleasure in seeing increased taxation put upon anybody for the sake of putting it upon them, yet, if there is a sum like £21,000,000 available for national purposes, we submit that a much better way would be to use it in stimulating public development than to rely upon the chance benefit of some portion of the £21,000,000 going back into industry. I repeat that I am not convinced that by abating Income Tax by 6d. in the £ you can be absolutely sure that that abatement will necessarily find its way back into industry. It might, I admit, and of course it ought, but there is no assurance that it would. If you want to make an abatement of the incidence of Income Tax, I should much prefer the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) to restore the allowances; but, if that could not be done, I would suggest even a third alternative. It would be infinitely better for industry at large, and even, in the long run, for direct taxpayers, if this money were used for the development of public works.
    Suppose that, of this £21,000,000, £2,000,000 were restored to employers in the Lancashire cotton trade, I venture to doubt whether such a restoration would stimulate to any considerable extent the cotton trade of Lancashire. It is not so much lack of money from which Lancashire suffers. What Lancashire suffers from, so far as the internal trade of Britain is concerned, is that the general mass of the people of Britain are unable to purchase the goods of Lancashire. My own people in South Wales, for instance, are very poor. In the prosperous days, every draper in my area was very busy, and, the more busy and prosperous he was, the more he sent orders for cotton goods to Lancashire. Now the depression has caught us, and the consequence is that there is no buying of new cotton goods in my area, or very little, and fewer orders than ever are going into the cotton mills of Lancashire. If we could
    1980
    visualise the use of this £21,000,000 in such a way as to stimulate the purchasing power of the mass of the people in various parts of the country, an inevitable consequence would be an increased flow of orders into the cotton mills of Lancashire and a demand for the putting of more money into the industry by those who are responsible for its conduct. Therefore, as compared with the potential benefit from £21,000,000 used for an abatement of taxation, I submit that a more certain benefit would be obtained if it were expended on public works.
    For these reasons I consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a wrong line of policy in this matter. As I have said before, I should take no special joy in seeing Income Tax put upon anyone. I would like to see everyone without any taxes to pay at all. But that is impossible. We have certain burdens to bear, and there are certain taxes that we must collect. That being so, I submit that they should be collected from those who have at their disposal the most income with which to pay. Therefore, I suggest once more that this policy is wrong from the standpoint of making a permanent contribution to the revival of industry in this country, and for these reasons I, for my part, express my disapproval of the merits of the Resolution.
    8.24 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I little imagined, after the calm and uneventful discussion that we had on the previous Resolution, that the hon. Gentleman was going to give us the advantage of a Second Reading speech on the Budget. However, what he says is invariably interesting, though to deal with all the generalities which he has propounded would tax the patience of the Committee were I to undertake the task. We are dealing here with a very limited subject. The Government are proposing by this Resolution to reduce the standard rate of Income Tax by 6d., but such is the pass of ingratitude to which we have come that our very concessions are represented as robbery. I would defy any impartial spectator of this Debate, not knowing in advance the real facts, to draw from what has been said the conclusion that we are here actually benefiting almost every person in the community. Hon. Members opposite seem to imply in all their speeches that to exact from what are

    1981
    called working people any contribution towards the expenses of the State is an imposition. They regard it as being the duty of those whom they describe as rich to pay the taxes, and they wish to exempt the poor.
    Mr. WILMOT: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was not referring to the hon. Member. I was merely indulging in that pastime which commends itself so much to hon. Members opposite—generalities. They, therefore, argue that the burden of what they call direct taxation should be increased and the burden of what they call indirect taxation should be diminished. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), selecting his figures quite arbitrarily, said that over a certain space of time the burden of direct taxation had been diminished and the burden of indirect taxation increased, but he did not remind the House of a very important fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) called attention the other day, namely, that the burden of direct taxation has actually increased since the War and the burden of indirect taxation has diminished.
    I beg the hon. Member, who is always impartial in so far as belonging to a political party allows one to be so, to consider one or two facts. The weight of direct taxation has been increased. The Income Tax in 1930 and 1931 was twice raised, by 6d. each time, the Surtax was raised, and yet the yield fell. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman who interrupted me will at least pay attention to this and answer it if he can, on some subsequent occasion I hope, when he has had time to reflect upon it. Using the figure in the way in which the hon. Member uses it, one would deduce from that fact that the burden of direct taxation had actually been diminished. Of course, it has not. The Surtax charge has been at the same rate since 1931, in which year it was raised, and yet the Exchequer receipts from the tax have fallen steadily from £76,700,000 in 1931 to £52,500,000 last year. But the tax is higher than it was. The yield is smaller because these people have lost a portion of their income; yet the hon. Member is arguing that, since the yield is less, precisely because these people have suffered more, therefore the contribution
    1982
    that they make to the community has diminished and should be increased. I am sure he will see how unfair it is to use figures in that way.
    Take indirect taxation and see what happens. The lighter the burden on the indirect taxpayer the greater the yield. If indirect taxation were raised so high that goods were kept out of the country altogether and the burden upon the purchasing working class was intensified, the hon. Member would be forced to say that the proportion of indirect taxation had fallen. That is exactly the opposite of what he wants to argue. I am not in the least trying to make a false point, but I submit that these generalities ought to be analysed a little further, and, although I pointed out some of these considerations to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) two or three nights ago, I notice that he has not yet, despite his ingenuity, been able to provide an answer. But it is time that this argument of indirect versus direct taxation as a burden upon the community was abandoned or, at any rate, adjusted in accordance with reality.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures that I read out giving direct and indirect? I have the last figures that he gave me.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not in the least dispute the figures, because I provided them. I was commenting upon them. All that I am asking the hon. Member to do is to look at the figures with which I have provided him and then to look at my comments upon them, and his conclusions may be different from those that he has given to the House. The hon. Member for Caerphilly accused us the other night of having in some way gone back upon our pledges. I had forgotten the incident until he revived it, although I thought it was a little irrelevant, unless it was for the purpose of receding from the attitude that he then adopted. If that was his object, I respect and honour him for what he has done. There was no pledge about priority of restoration in favour of a particular class, and the hon. Gentleman has never been able to produce any pledge of that kind. The principle upon which we have embarked—it has been repeatedly enunciated—is that those who have the first claim upon any surplus are those who made the contribution in 1931.

    1983
    We are not concerned theoretically as to whether they are rich or poor. We are concerned with the question whether they made a contribution. If they made contributions towards a particular crisis, now that the intensity of the crisis has passed, and we have a surplus, we must restore in roughly the same proportions as those in which we took. That is at present the sole consideration. Hon. Members opposite have argued as if it were more beneficial to spend money in this way or that way, more beneficial to take this or that tax off. That is not the essential question. It is true that what we are doing will have certain influences upon shops and upon factories, but we are concerned with answering the question, "Who gave, and in what proportion," and we say we will restore, in so far as humanly possible, in those proportions.
    When you come to Income Tax, it is true that you are confronted with alternatives. You can either restore the allowances to where they were, or you can reduce the standard rate. Whichever of those alternatives my right hon. Friend had chosen, he would have been criticised, because the mere fact that there are alternatives implies that some will disagree with the choice that you make. I do not in the least deny that the poorer class of Income Tax payer might on the whole have benefited more from a restoration of the allowances. That may be true, but my right hon. Friend felt that more good and more justice would be done by restoring equally the standard rate over the whole class of Income Tax payers. When the hon. Gentleman opposite says that he should not have done that but should have had regard to the revival of industry, he must bear in mind that an incidental effect of the reduction of the standard rate is to relieve the reserves of companies, and, as I would like to add, of co-operative societies. They derive an appreciable amount of benefit from the reduction in the standard rate. Psychologically, a reduction in the standard rate has a far bigger effect and provides far greater and more rapid stimulus towards revival.
    Miss RATHBONE: The hon. Gentleman has used several times the phrase that the restoration was to be propor-
    1984
    tionate to the amount taken away. Will he explain to the House how that principle squares with the figures which I and other speakers have given? Does it carry out the principle of proportionate restoration, and, if so, how does it carry it out?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Lady made a speech, and it is quite true that in some sense I have replied to that speech. I have said, as she reminds me, that an effort has been made to restore the contributions as far as is humanly possible in proportion. When you come to the Income Tax payers—I hesitate to repeat this again—you have alternatives. You can restore allowances, or you can restore the standard rate. When we are confronted with those alternatives and we take one of them, of course, there are people who say that we ought to have taken the other. But the proportion of the cost of these two things is roughly the same. I do not in the least complain that we are criticised. In fact, I am grateful because should it so happen that next year we do restore these allowances hon. Gentlemen opposite will have provided us with a great deal of advance support. When we took off the Beer Duty last year at first they were tempted to criticise it, but when one looked at what they said before one found that they had advocated it. If this year the situation permits and my right hon. Friend finds it possible to distribute a surplus, which we all hope we shall have, in the way that has been advocated to-night, hon. Gentlemen will have had all their desires fulfilled. I can only apologise to them for the fact that we have not been able to fulfil them this year and simultaneously.
    Mr. MABANE: May I ask my hon. Friend to clear up one point? He said that by choosing the method which has been chosen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have selected one which did not serve the interests of the poorer section of the community so well. I am sure that my hon. Friend meant that only in respect of Income Tax, and that really what he meant to say was that, by choosing this method and by assisting industry to revive, the poorer section of the community would receive much greater benefit than by the method suggested by the Opposition.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I thank my hon. Friend for putting far more clearly and concisely than I could have done what was in my mind, and I am very grateful to him.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. COVE: The interesting speech to which we have just listened has impelled me to get on to my feet. The Financial Secretary is always interesting. I regard him as one of the most capable debaters on the Government Front Bench, and he is never more interesting and capable than when he is indulging in generalities. He has indulged in generalities to-night fully, and I believe that the whole House has enjoyed those generalities, but the defence of the proposals before the House has been most inadequate. He stated that one would have imagined that we were not talking about a concession, and that the concession had been represented in this Debate as a robbery. I regard it as a robbery under the conditions which at present obtain. During the years of the crisis the Exchequer came along and demanded cuts in the salaries of certain servants of the State, such as teachers, civil servants, post office officials and so on. In addition to that, they said that they were going to impose an additional range of Income Tax by raising the standard rate by 6d. Further, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) has clearly demonstrated in the two speeches which he has delivered, they have imposed the greatest burden on these classes of people by the adjustment of the allowances.
    The State this year had a certain amount at its disposal; it had a surplus. That surplus arose largely out of the sacrifices which had been made by these people. The surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of £31,000,000 was due mainly to the fact that teachers, civil servants, and the "cut" classes had made their contributions, and that the range of Income Tax had been increased. The lower middle classes and the wage earners who came within the Income Tax range owing to these adjustments had their taxation tremendously raised. Those are the sources of the surplus. One would have imagined that when such a surplus was to be restored, more regard would have been had to the sources from whence it had been derived, and how it had been derived. To come along with a surplus
    1986
    at disposal and not to adjust the burdens imposed upon the lower middle classes and the small wage-earners is a form of robbery. It is taking the surplus and giving it to people who made the least sacrifices in relation to their condition of life. It is giving to these people a surplus created out of the sacrifices made by poorer sections of the community. Therefore, those people who suffered cuts and the double sacrifice with regard to their Income Tax, and the generality of people who suffered owing to the allowances infliction can regard the action of the Government as, in a sense, robbery. They have made their contributions to the surplus placed at the disposal of the Government.
    The hon. Gentleman tried to make out that the higher Income Tax people had suffered a great deal owing to diminishing incomes, and that this made the burden on these particular people all the greater. The unemployed man, who has not had his cuts restored, is suffering a far greater burden than people in the higher ranges of incomes, and in the proposal to reduce the standard rate by 6d. you have the great outstanding achievement, the great significance, of the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has at his disposal £29,000,000 and £20,000,000 are going to this class. It is just and fair to say that the proposal we are now discussing amply justifies the description of the acting Leader of the Opposition, that it is a mean and unjust Budget. This proposal, having regard to all the circumstances, shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have forged a class weapon in the Budget.
    It has been said that the unemployed get the restoration of their cuts. The glory has already gone from that proposal. We know now that those who are suffering from the means test are not going to get anything like an adequate restoration of the cuts. The unemployed cut amounted to no less than £24,000,000 on the means test side. Where is the equality of restoration as between the unemployed and the persons who will be helped by a restoration of the standard rate? I can see no equity or justice in it. From the point of view of decency the Government should have said, "Well, in the crisis the unemployed suffered greatly and the small man in the lower

    1987
    ranges of income suffered greatly, much more heavily and severely than those in the higher ranges of income, and now that there is a surplus at our disposal those people who suffered the most, because their income was the least, shall have first consideration. It is not the people who have suffered the most because their income is the least who have the first consideration, the people who have most are getting most back, the people who could afford to make a contribution to the national emergency without reducing their standard of life or affecting any item of luxury are the people who, by this proposal, will get the most benefit. In normal times this would have been a most unjust and iniquitous proposal, but having regard to the fact that we are dealing with a surplus which arises in relation to the crisis which existed in 1931, it is even more unjust and more iniquitous.
    I cannot understand, having regard to the economic policy of the Government, why they have not seen that the suggestions of the hon. Member for East Fulham are not only just but sound economically. The Government, as I understand, have determined to rest upon the development of the home market; the Chancellor said so in his Budget speech. Therefore, quite apart from any other policy, now that the Government have embarked on a close home market it seems to me that they would have realised that the purchasing power of our own people was more important than ever. If we are to depend for the revival and development of our industries more and more on our internal purchasing power then the Government should take steps to increase that internal purchasing power to the maximum degree possible. They have not done that by this proposal. It is not the spenders who are going to have 6d. relief, it is the savers; and it is not savers that we want at the present moment. We want spenders. The lower middle classes, the working classes and the unemployed, ought to have increased purchasing power. It would have been a far more effective economic action, a far greater contribution to the revival of trade, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given this £21,000,000 straight back into the pockets of the unemployed. The
    1988
    Government, of course, have to please certain sections of the community to whom they are indebted.
    I suggest that as the Budget is more and more understood, as its unjust incidence is more and more appreciated, the more unpopular will the Government become. There has been such anxiety, such great interest, in the unfolding of the Budget this year, such keenness as to its proposals, that the reaction has been all the greater now that the proposals have been revealed. Numerous classes of people felt that they had largely contributed to the surplus and they sincerely hoped—not partisans of ours, not Labour people—that the Government would use the surplus in a fair and just way. The more they realise the way in which the Government have distributed this surplus the more the resentment has grown, and there is keen and strong disappointment. But not only is there resentment, there is fear and distrust that the Government do not intend to deal with the classes of people affected by the allowances.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that we are dealing with the Resolution, not with the Budget.
    Mr. COVE: I am relating it in a moment to the proposal before the House. I am showing that the resentment arises not merely because the allowances have not been restored but because the surplus has been dealt with in the manner proposed. These people, who looked forward to an equitable distribution, remember that during the crisis the allowance proposals were justified not merely on the basis of the crisis but on the basis of the Report of the Royal Commission. I hope that the Government are not going to take that attitude. I hope they will realise that they owe it to the unemployed that the surplus should be given back to them. They owe it to the "cut" classes, and to those affected by the allowances. I do not know whether we shall have in this Debate any firmer promise than we have had. I hope we shall.
    The proposals we are discussing undoubtedly embody most unjust provisions. They show that the Government have not reviewed the whole situation, that

    1989
    the Government have not had due regard to the real sacrifices that were imposed in 1931, and this particular proposal embodies a policy which is most iniquitous, which is not fair to these people, which is indeed mean, so far as the "cut" classes and the unemployed are concerned. I think we ought to resist it. I understand we are not going to divide against the proposal, but I wish we had an opportunity of doing so in order to show our disgust at the meanness of the proposal, at the wickedness of using a surplus got out of the sacrifices that I have enumerated, taken from the poorer sections of the community, and the period of restoration used in order to restore the money to the richer section.
    8.57 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I rise only because the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury invited me to do so. He mentioned one or two matters upon which I would like to say a few words. He pointed out, I understood, that compared with pre-War times the taxation on the direct taxpayer has been increased. In view of the fact that we have had a little War since then it is not surprising that the person who in fact received the interest on the War debt in this country should pay back a larger proportion than when we had practically no National Debt at all. There is another matter which the Financial Secretary has entirely overlooked. When one is speaking of burden one has to recollect out of what the taxpayer has to meet the burden. The burden is the weight which falls upon him compared with his capability of bearing it. During the last few years the fall in wages has been measured in hundreds of millions of pounds. When one is considering the burden of indirect taxation one has to remember that there has been a vast fall in the wage levels, and that the burden, measured by these wage levels, has enormously increased.
    But one need not really inquire into the exact figures, because this the Financial Secretary will not dispute: The whole purpose of the policy of the Government has been to raise or maintain price levels. The object in view is that the profits from industry may increase. That is the admitted objective of the Government. That means increasing the amount of money in the hands of the profit-owning classes
    1990
    and decreasing the amount in the hands of the consumers for a given volume of business. That is necessarily so, because if you do not achieve that end you do not achieve the very purpose that you set out to achieve, that is to say, to maintain profits in order that, industry being sufficiently profitable, you may be able to go on with your production. It is idle to suggest that that is not the means which is used by the Government to try to readjust the incidence of the profits on the one hand and the consumers' prices and the receipts of the workers on the otter. Take the wheat subsidy—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the Report stage discussion is limited specifically to the Resolution before the House.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I was speaking strictly in reply to the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and on a point upon which he invited me to reply.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If I remember rightly the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary invited the hon. and learned Member to reply on some future occasion when the whole policy of the Budget would be open to discussion.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: This is a future occasion, with great respect. Let me just complete what I was saying on that one point, that is, that so far as the reduction of Income Tax from 5s. to 4s. 6d. is concerned it is merely an attempt to relieve the profit fund of the sixpence tax and therefore to allow a further amount of the profits to remain in the hands of the profit owner, in order to try to stimulate production according to the ordinary capitalist theory of economics. The Financial Secretary said that the Government were merely looking at who had made the contribution at the time of the cuts, and that they were not concerned whether they were the rich or the poor. That is precisely what we blame them for, because the rich are able to bear things which the poor are not able to bear, and any Government in any community ought to have regard to whether the burdens of taxation fall upon the rich or the poor, and not be perfectly callous, as the hon. Gentleman stands up and boasts that his Government is at the present time.

    1991
    Then the Financial Secretary went on to say that we must look at the proportions in which this contribution was made in 1931, and he conveniently forgot or did not take into account the whole of the incidence of the means test. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the means test was put on in 1931, but it was not part of the economy cuts—a most fallacious and misleading argument. Of course it was part of the economy cuts. I suggest that every one who was in the House when the provisions were passed imposing the means test, and when the statement was made as to the contemplated savings which would result from that imposition, was under the impression that that was part of the whole Economy Bill. Now, conveniently, it is said that that was a permanent arrangement. It is not going to be replaced even if we have a surplus next year.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have to discuss the means test on another occasion.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I was again only dealing with a matter which the Financial Secretary put forward in his speech. But I will leave the question of the means test. The hon. Gentleman said that he agreed that there were these two methods by which the Income Tax remission might have been dealt with. Of that we only say that one is better than the other and that neither of them will be just, because there are other claims that come first, and next year it will not necessarily satisfy us if the Chancellor puts back the allowances on Income Tax, because there might still be other things that come first, and he may not have enough money to do the first things first.
    Then the hon. Gentleman makes use of an extraordinary argument. He says in effect: "I agree that the poorer person under the Income Tax law will not get as good a share of the remission as the richer person, yet we have come to the conclusion that justice will be done by the remission." What is the justice which enables the Government to give better treatment to the rich Income Tax payer than to the poor Income Tax payer? I could understand expediency, but what justice is there in that procedure? We have had no explanation of why it is just, when you have this money
    1992
    to give back, that you should give more of it to the rich man than to the poor man. One is driven to believe that the real reason is not justice. It it not a return for the cuts that were made or the sacrifices that were suffered. It is just ordinary pedestrian capitalism operating in its ordinary, common, economic way on the principle that you must try to give back to the profit-earning class—not the lower middle class, but the profit-earning class—as much as you can in the way of profits, in order that the more they retain the greater may be their inducement to manufacture. That is the explanation of this Resolution and of this Budget.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
    9.10 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): It is perhaps desirable that I should explain to the House the purpose of what at first sight appears a formidable Resolution. The purpose is to restore the law to the position in which it was always believed to be until a recent decision, which hon. Members opposite probably remember, known as the Normanby decision. The Resolution deals with the payment of mining royalties. There are one or two kindred payments to which it applies, but mining royalties form a convenient illustration, being the main payment to which the Resolution refers. If a mining concern earns sufficient profits to cover the payment of the royalties which it has to pay to the lessor no difficulty arises. The mining concern deducts the tax appropriate to the amount of the royalties payable to the lessor, and inasmuch as the profits concerned have already suffered tax, that mining concern retains the tax which they have deducted from the royalties paid to the lessor.
    A different question arises when the profits of the mining concern are not equal to the royalties which have to be paid to the lessor. It may be that there are no profits at all. In that case the

    1993
    practice has been, in many instances, to deduct the appropriate tax from the sum paid to the lessor in respect of royalties, but inasmuch as those royalties are not paid out of profits which have already suffered tax, the mining concern accounts to the Revenue for the tax so deducted. In some cases where tax has not been so deducted the recipient of the royalty, the lessor, has been assessed to tax directly and, of course, has paid it as everybody expected he would be required to pay it. But by the decision given recently to which I have referred it has been held that the royalty-owner is not liable to be assessed directly to tax in respect of those royalties which he receives. The result is that the mining concern is not entitled to deduct tax from the payments it makes to the lessor when those payments are not made out of profits which have already been assessed to tax. By this result, in many eases, where mining concerns are carrying on business unprofitably, or only making a small profit, the lessor escapes tax altogether upon his mining royalties.
    The House will observe, therefore, that the liability of the lessor to tax in respect of his royalties depends on the pure accident of whether the mining concern paying the royalties earns a profit equal to the amount of the royalties in the year or not. Nobody dreamt until recently that such was the law; nobody would contend that it ought to be the law and nobody will complain if the practice which has hitherto been carried out, in accordance with what was believed to be the law, is restored. I hope that the House will agree to this Resolution in order that justice may be done, no extra burden placed upon anybody and the position made what everybody hitherto believed it to be.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    9.15 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Resolution is concerned with a small Sub-section contained in the Finance Act, 1894, in connection with annuities or
    1994
    other interests which are provided by a deceased person and come into the possession of the beneficiary after the death. Sub-section (1, d) of Section 2 of that Finance Act, shortly and in un-technical language, provides that that interest shall be liable to Estate Duty in the hands of the beneficiary when the death takes place, at which date the interest first begins. It was always supposed until quite recently that the amount of the Estate Duty was to be estimated by reference to the full value of the beneficial interest, which begins immediately upon the death, but by a decision—it does not matter whether of a majority of the House of Lords or of the whole House—in the House of Lords it has been held that it is not the full value of the beneficial interest arising from the death which is to be taxed, but only the value of that beneficial interest after deducting the value of what is called the expectant interest before the death took place.
    The practice of the last 40 years has been to value this interest that arises on the death in the way in which it will be valued if the House sees fit to approve this Resolution and pass the consequent Clause in the Finance Bill into law. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that there is no intention in this Clause of interfering with the decision in question, in the Adamson case, and the parties who were interested in that case will get the benefit of the decision. I am only asking that the House shall say that at any rate in future the law is to be what I venture to think 99 people out of 100 believe it to be, and what every solicitor practising has always accepted it as being.
    9.17 p.m.
    Mr. SPENS: While I am very glad to hear that the result of the Adamson case is not going to be interfered with by this Resolution, there is a number of other cases, to my knowledge, where exactly the same point has been raised, and with great respect to what the learned Attorney-General has said, I do not think this Sub-section should really be applied to the type of case to which it was applied in the Adamson case. Actually the Adamson case was dealing with a particular point of trust, but there is a number of other trusts of very much the same kind in respect to which proceedings have

    1995
    been started, and if the Clause in the Finance Bill is brought in in exactly the same words as this Resolution, by making the basis on which the valuation should be considered for Estate Duty purposes retrospective, the whole of the costs incurred in those pending proceedings will be absolutely wasted. I hope, therefore, the learned Attorney-General will be able to give some assurance that where proceedings have been started they are not going to be made absolutely nugatory by reason of this Resolution and consequent provision in the Finance Bill.
    9.19 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If I may be allowed to reply to my hon. and learned Friend, I do not want to give at the present moment a positive undertaking as to the precise extent to which we shall safeguard ourselves, which has not been determined. I have given a positive assurance as to the fruits of the Adamson case for the benefit of the persons engaged in it. It may be that it will be possible to safeguard, not merely cases in which litigation has been begun; it may be possible to go even a little further and safeguard all cases where the death has occurred before the Act was passed, but where the duty has not been paid. If my hon. and learned Friend and others who are anxious on the same point will be good enough to wait until they see the Clause in question, the matter is being considered, and full opportunity will be given of raising the point if the Clause is not satisfactory.

  FINANCE [POWER TO BORROW FOR CERTAIN FINANCIAL PURPOSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That the whole or any part of the sums required in the current financial year for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of sub-section (4) of section twenty-three of the Finance Act, 1928, may be provided out of money to be borrowed for the purpose under section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, instead of out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."

  FINANCE [SINKING FUND OF THREE PER CENT. FUNDING LOAN, 1959–69].
  Resolution reported,
  "That any sums required to fulfil the undertaking contained in the prospectus of the Three per cent. Funding Loan, 1959–69, to set aside certain sums for sinking fund purposes shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and that the whole or any part of the sums so required in the current financial year may be provided out of moneys to be borrowed for the purpose under section one of the War Loan Act, 1919."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  9.21 p.m.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I understand that the object of the Resolution is that we may capitalise the Sinking Fund of the Funding Loan, 1959–69, by issuing a fresh loan in order to meet it, and I think it is as well that people in the country generally should realise that this is an orthodox financial operation carried through by a great National Government with a large surplus at its disposal. There was a time when a suggestion of this sort was made by a Labour Government or by Members who had been in a Labour Government, and they were generally denounced and looked upon as being very unorthodox in their financial views when they suggested that one might abolish the Sinking Fund or else raise fresh capital in order to meet the Sinking Fund in a condition of crisis. Therefore, it is as well that the House and the country should know that that extremely orthodox financier the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is bringing forward the proposal himself to-day, and I hope that when on future occasions, perhaps as regards larger sums, similar provisions are made, he will not object to them.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I raised this question of statutory sinking funds during the Budget Debate, but I was unable to get an answer. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had a number of points to deal with, and probably he overlooked this question. As the last speaker has said, it seems rather extra-

  1997
  ordinary that an orthodox financier like the Chancellor of the Exchequer should come forward to ask us to agree to this statutory Sinking Fund. During the wartime I frequently protested against this unsound and wasteful expedient. During the Debate last week I quoted in support of my arguments the Colwyn Report, and I referred the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to that report to show how unsound were these statutory Sinking Funds. I do not know whether he has had time to refer to it, but I would like to quote one or two sentences from it to show how unsound and wasteful these statutory Sinking Funds are. That committee, presided over by Lord Colwyn, had among its members some very distinguished bankers of that day and reported on the 20th March, 1924. Among the members of the committee were men like Sir Charles Addis, Mr. Henry Bell, and Sir Josiah Stamp, some of them Directors of the Bank of England. The committee was appointed for the purpose of going into the question of the National Debt and conversions of the National Debt and Sinking Fund, and it is more particularly with reference to the Sinking Fund that I would ask the House to give me their attention. The committee said:
  "The record of the earliest efforts to establish a fund for the redemption of debt in this country shows one long series of failures. It was not until after the enunciation by Dr. Hamilton in 1814 of the principle 'that the excess of revenue over expenditure is the only real sinking fund by which public debt can be discharged' and the endorsement of this principle by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1820 that any real attempt was made to place the Sinking Fund upon a sound basis."
  They go on to show the unsoundness of these proposals. I argued during the Budget Debate that if you have a statutory Sinking Fund, as I showed from experience, you have to borrow at a higher rate of interest. This Sinking Fund to which we are asked to subscribe to-night goes on from 20 to 25 years, and while at present we may be enjoying cheap money there may come a time when we shall be faced with a deficit, and under statutory law we are bound to borrow. When you are working for a deficit and have to borrow for the purposes of the Sinking Fund, the effect of borrowing £2,000,000, £3,000,000 or £5,000,000 is to depreciate Government
  1998
  stocks. It merely means that bankers and others profit by this, and it increases the burdens on the taxpayer and is most unsound. Let me quote one more extract from the Colwyn Report in which they say:
  "We are, however, inclined to think that definite attachment to particular loans tends to be disadvantageous. The present specific Sinking Funds are in the main attached to the longer term loans, and in one case to funded debt; that means that upon the maturity of short issues reborrowing (or conversion) has to be pro tanto greater than if the whole Sinking Fund had been free and available for such payments."
  I hope I have said sufficient. While I, of course, understand that you cannot question the prospectus issued for this last loan, and we are bound to the subscribers to it to carry through these obligations to-night, I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is very courteous and willing to listen to any points from any part of the House, will bear in mind, if there should be any further refunding operations, the passages I have quoted from the report, even if he is not impressed by the arguments I have submitted.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am a little surprised that the observations which have been made should have been made on this particular Resolution rather than on the one which preceded it, and on which I should have supposed exactly the same points would have arisen. This is a Resolution which applies to one particular loan, but the previous Resolution applied in the same way to other loans. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), as I understand him, has been putting his views on the undesirability of attaching a statutory Sinking Fund to the loan, but what we are discussing on this Resolution is not whether there should be a statutory Sinking Fund to a loan, but whether the Government should be given power to borrow to provide for the statutory Sinking Fund. That is the whole question of this Resolution. The question of the existence of a statutory fund is really not in dispute, and, in spite of the authority the hon. Member has quoted, and which, of course, I recognise, the advice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives on these occasions has regard to the best and cheapest method of raising money,

  1999
  and the attachment of a statutory Sinking Fund in this particular case, I was advised, would have a steadying effect on the market, and would have the effect of checking market fluctuations. In fact, I think it has been welcomed in the City of London as a wise provision, and I think one may say that it has enabled me to borrow more cheaply than I should have done.
  As to the general point of the advisability of borrowing, I must agree that this is merely transferring one form of debt to another, and I am not one to advocate that as an ordinary practice, but there are circumstances which alter cases, and the circumstances of the present time to which I alluded in my Budget statement make it not unreasonable that I should ask the House to give me this power for another year. If the hon. Member comes forward again with similar proposals, I shall have to judge whether the circumstances are similar.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
    REPORT [19TH APRIL].
    Resolution reported.
    REPORT [19TH APRIL].

      AMENDMENT OF LAW.
      "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with Finance."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      9.34 p.m.
      Mr. DENMAN: I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will forgive me if for a few moments I point out an Amendment that ought to be made in the law relating to Death Duties—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member must do that on the Finance Bill by moving an Amendment.
      Mr. DENMAN: May I not endeavour to discuss it?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not on this Resolution.
      Mr. DENMAN: Does not this relate to the amendment of the law concerning Inland Revenue?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The only effect of this Resolution is to enable the Committee to amend the laws relating to National Debt and Customs and Inland Revenue.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this is the usual Clause? Is there anything particular contemplated under it?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.
      Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Hore-Belisha.

      FINANCE BILL,
      "to grant certain duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with finance," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next; and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

  COUNTY COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  9.36 p.m.
  Major MILNER: I do not think that the House ought to let this Bill pass the Third Reading without appreciating what the Government have done with regard to it. The Bill has many useful features, and clears up many anomalies in the administration of county courts, but it has two features which, in our view, are extremely unsatisfactory. One is that the Bill, with the exception of minor Amendments, of which the Attorney-General has been good enough to let me have a list, does not extend the present county court

  2001
  jurisdiction, which is a very restricted one, and the Government have declined to accept any Amendment to increase it. The present jurisdiction has been the same for the most part since 1888, in some oases since the 'sixties and in other cases since 1903; and we on these benches thought that the time bad come, in view of the increased value of money, to double the jurisdiction. Therefore, in Committee we proposed that the jurisdiction, where it was £100 should he increased to £200; where, as in Admiralty matters, it was £300, it should be increased to £600; and in other cases where the jurisdiction was limited to £500, it might properly be increased to £1,000.
  The Government, however, declined to accept any of these Amendments. I am not entitled to speak at length with regard to them, but I want to express the strong view of those of us who sit on these benches that the Government in this Bill have lost an opportunity of making litigation cheaper and making it more easily available, particularly to people in the provinces. A good many cases at present have to be brought to London to be tried in the High Court which might quite well and properly be tried in the provinces. That is particularly the case now that certain assize towns have been done away with. That is one good reason why, in our view, the facilities of county courts should be extended. Another matter in regard to which the Bill makes an alteration of the present law is in connection with juries. There have been for many years past, particularly under this Government, considerable encroachments on the law regarding trial by jury. In county courts one used to be entitled to a jury as a right by the mere payment of the fees, which were small. In 1925 that law was altered, and it was decided that there should be no right to trial by jury in equity cases, or where the claim did not exceed £5, and in regard to certain cases which are preserved in the present Bill. Since 1925 the law has been that if a party applies for a case other than those exempted to be tried by jury, unless the court is satisfied it is a case which is more fit to be tried without a jury, the court is bound to permit a jury to try the case. The Government propose in this Bill that all cases, with certain ex-
  2002
  ceptions, shall be tried without a jury unless the court, on application, otherwise orders.
  I understand that it was suggested that this is analogous to the procedure in the High Court. That is not so, however, because in the High Court an order has to be made by the Master or the Registrar as to the mode of trial, whereas in the county court the trial will be without a jury unless the court otherwise orders, except in the cases which are exempted. There is a disinclination on the part of many judges to try cases with a jury in a great majority of instances. No guidance is afforded in the Bill as to the grounds on which any decision whether a case should be tried by a jury should be based, and in our view this Bill is really the deathknell of juries in civil cases in county courts—one of the rights that were given by Magna Charta. It is a remarkable fact that we on these benches, together on some occasions with those on the Liberal benches, should be the upholders of these traditional rights of Englishmen which the National Government are day by day in one direction and another taking from us.
  We recognise that the Bill in many small matters effects an improvement in the administration of county courts. We further recognise—perhaps the Attorney-General will confirm this—that it is not intended that the Bill should come into law yet. I understand the Government intend that there shall be a Consolidation Bill in relation to county courts, and that the provisions of the present Bill will be included. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether there is any hope of the jurisdiction being increased in the way that we ask when the Consolidation Bill comes before the House. Failing that being the case, I imagine that we on these benches would desire to move Amendments to it. Bearing in mind that the Consolidation Bill is coming before the House, and that it is not intended that the present Bill shall have effect at present, although we feel strongly on these matters, we do not propose to divide the House on the Third Reading.
  9.42 p.m.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman asks me if he is right in thinking that this Bill will not come into opera-

  2003
  tion, but will be postponed until it is embodied in the Consolidation Bill. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right on that point. May I refer to the two points to which he takes exception. He complains that, broadly speaking, the jurisdiction of county courts has not been enlarged by doubling the amounts which represent the limit of the county court jurisdiction. As I tried to explain in Committee upstairs, there is a great deal more involved than merely considering whether more actions can be tried by the county court judge. If he tries a large number of what are at present called High Court cases, that is to say, cases up to £150 or £200, it will take up the time of the court to a disproportionate extent, and will prevent the small litigant with his £10, £15 or £20 case having it tried quickly and expeditiously. The county court is not intended under its existing organisation and with its existing personnel for the trial of more substantial cases than personal actions in which the amount involved does not exceed £100. If ever it is decided to give it enlarged jurisdiction, there will have to be a radical alteration of the relations between the High Court and the county court, and that was not possible within the time available in this Session or within the scope of this Bill.
  The other point to which the hon. and gallant Member alluded was the very slight alteration in reference to the right of a litigant to have a jury. Now the law will be precisely the same in the county court as in the High Court. The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. He will forgive me if I still remain of the opinion which I expressed. The fact is that here, again, we have taken into consideration the interests of litigants. Trial by jury undoubtedly takes a longer time than trial by a judge, and if, as he proposed in his Amendment in Committee, we had ordered that every case was to be tried by a jury unless otherwise ordered by the judge, it would have meant that in every case an application would have had to be made by a solicitor for the trial to be by the judge when the clients so desired it. I persuaded him—and I dare say there are other hon. Members on both sides of the House who will confirm me—that in general the litigant in the county court would prefer his
  2004
  case to be tried quickly and expeditiously by the judge, who generally has, to an extraordinary extent, the confidence of litigants in the county court, than tried by eight jurymen, with a great deal of additional expense and uncertainty.
  The hon. and gallant Member tempts me to say something about the people who are engaged in filching the rights of the subject, but even with the spectacle of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) sitting so invitingly in front of him, I am not going to indulge in any observations about people who interfere with the rights of the subject. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for the other observations he made. In general, I think that he and I are agreed that this is a good Bill—he has his opinion of the two points he has mentioned—and a useful Bill, which effects useful, minor changes in the law of the county court.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1933.
  9.48 p.m.
  Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move,
  "That the Bacon (Import Regulation) Order, 1934, dated the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Board of Trade under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, a copy of which was presented to this House on the ninth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."
  I think very few words will be necessary to satisfy the House about this amending Bacon Order. Hon. Members will recollect that an Order was made in November last restricting the importation of bacon. To that Order there was a Schedule containing the list of countries to which the Order applied. The Order provided that if at any time the Board of Trade were satisfied that bacon was being imported from any other country to the extent of more than 400 cwt. a week the Board of Trade could limit such importation. Imports from other countries, not being of any significant quantity, were not regulated. Unfortunately, there was a way of evading the Order of November, 1933. Pigs could be exported from a country even though bacon could not, and

  2005
  so certain countries which had a surplus of pig production exported their live pigs to countries not named in the Schedule, and bacon made there from those pigs, exported from one of the 11 scheduled countries, began to arrive here in quantities of less than 400 cwt. a week. As the list of countries to which the Bacon Order applied was only 11, the House will appreciate that this method of evasion, had it been allowed to continue, would have entirely defeated the scheme. Imports at the rate of just under 400 cwt. a week from a very large number of countries would have produced a most serious state of affairs. As a matter of geography the House would be very much amused, I think, if it knew some of the countries which have begun sending us bacon. It is probably politic that I should not mention some of those countries, which are associated with anything but bacon.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is there any from Palestine?
  Dr. BURGIN: The amending Order comes into existence to stop the evasion. I want hon. Members to realise that all they are being asked to do in this amending Order is to carry out something which the House has already decided and to prevent evasion through a loophole. Substantially, the Order is in the same terms as the earlier Order. I will tell the House what the alterations are, because if the two Orders are looked at side by side it will be difficult for hon. Members, unless they have an underlined copy, as I have, to detect the difference between the two. On page 2 the first two paragraphs in the preamble are new, being necessary references to the old Order, which is revoked, and may be called recitals. Paragraph 1 is completely new, and I will explain its purpose in a moment. Paragraph 2 incorporates the old paragraphs 1 and 2 of the old Order. There are slight changes in paragraphs 7 (b) and 8 dealing with proof of origin. There is a new definition of "foreign country" in paragraph 10 (a), and paragraph 11 is a revoking paragraph.
  Of these alterations the only one on which the House will desire information is paragraph 1. People cannot now import into the United Kingdom bacon produced in one country from pigs bred in another. The pig growing and the bacon curing must go on in the same
  2006
  country. After all, that is what the earlier Order was intended to deal with, and the possibility of and the consequences of evasion had not been appreciated. The new paragraph 1 will effectively put an end to the state of affairs which I have described. I am sure that with this explanation the House will desire to show its disapproval of an evasion of its own clearly expressed intentions and will give me approval of this Order.
  9.54 p.m.
  Mr. WILMOT: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the lucidity of his speech on what is, to me, a somewhat complicated matter, but I must draw attention to the fact that this amending Order places still further restrictions on the supply of bacon. I beg the hon. Gentleman to have regard to the effect which this artificial scarcity is having on the poorer sections of the urban population. We have a new doctrine of artificially created scarcity, because this new attempt to deal with under consumption due to low wages is nothing less than the creation of an artificial scarcity. This Order is intended to tighten up the regulations and to make that scarcity somewhat more acute. I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that the effect of this action is that bacon has become an unobtainable luxury for the poorer sections of the community. I cannot speak of the price levels outside London, but in my own constituency the price of bacon during the last 12 months has risen by many pence per pound, and I know from the statements made by grocers and provision merchants in the retail trade that each restriction in production results in a smaller quantity of bacon being produced. Bacon will shortly become a luxury to which only a small proportion of the population will have access.
  I beg of the Minister that, in pursuing this policy, he should have regard to its effects upon the consumer. My own view is that it would be very much better if the policy of the Government were directed towards raising the purchasing power of the consumer rather than towards creating an artificial scarcity in the product. That is too wide a matter to be debated now, and I would leave it where it is. I ask the Minister to be for ever vigilant as to the effect of these

  2007
  restrictions on the price and the effects of the price upon the volume of consumption.
  9.52 p.m.
  Mr. JOHN WALLACE: The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) has spoken of bacon; I shall refer to ham. I am not prepared to give a scientific definition of the difference between bacon and ham. Very strong representations have come from Scotland about the scarcity of ham for the processing ham industry in that country. I asked a question a short time ago of the President of the Board of Trade regarding this matter, because there is quite a serious position in Scotland so far as the processing of ham is concerned, and the President was kind enough to promise to make an inquiry into the matter. I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has any further information to give upon the subject.
  There is a considerable processing ham industry in Scotland and since the restrictions were introduced supplies have been affected. I am not criticising the policy of the quota which in many industries is essential, but quotas can only be satisfactory in this case if supplies can be met by the pig industry at home. The people engaged in the industry find it impossible to get supplies of ham from the agricultural interests at home. It is perhaps not generally known that Scottish interests in this matter have been rather neglected. During the Great War, the allocation from Scotland was as to 85 per cent. ham and 15 per cent. bacon, so that while England is a bacon-and-egg country Scotland is very largely a ham-made country. It is most unfortunate that Scottish interests have—I am sure not wilfully—been overlooked. The anomaly is that the important place hitherto occupied by ham in the Scottish provision market, in contradistinction to that occupied by bacon, has not been sufficiently recognised in the form of quota restrictions which govern imports into Great Britain under the scheme. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to take this matter into serious consideration, because the present position is threatening a very important industry in Scotland.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I know that the Order is one of machinery and that if you are to have the machinery you must stop evasion, but the point that I want to make is in regard to paragraph 10, which furnishes a definition of bacon. I do not want to read out the whole of the definition, but simply the last two words in line 4. The paragraph says:
  "For the purpose of this Order, 'bacon' means"—
  then it goes on, and finishes with the two words:
  "includes ham."
  I have a letter in my possession from one of the biggest firms in Liverpool pointing out that, during the month of February, the market price of raw ham from the United States of America reached 100s. and over per cwt.; that price compares with 54s. and 64s. in February of last year. The quota commenced on the 1st March and since that date supplies have been more plentiful than they are to-day, when the price is from 81s. to 87s. per cwt., compared with 70s. to 74s. on the corresponding date last year. Everybody acknowledges the increase of prices in this country, but the point which I wish to make now is that there was a tremendous export trade in ham coming to this country, being cured here and made up and sent abroad. The letter points out how we are placed at a tremendous disadvantage in the various Continental markets because of the import restrictions upon bacon which, in the definition, includes ham. We are cutting off a very essential part of our export trade, so far as hams are concerned, by this artificial restriction of supplies. The matter ought to be put to the Minister of Agriculture that some other definition should be laid down, other than the one which is in the Order and is being carried out. I daresay that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will see this letter and that he will note the serious effect which is being produced. I shall be very much obliged if he will hand over the information to the Minister of Agriculture, to see if an alteration can be made in the definition in a way that will assist the export trade.
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: It is strange that some; of the agricultural Members who were vociferous and persistent in

  2009
  their demand for these Orders, have lost their interest in them once the Orders have been given to them. One is unable to elicit either word or sign from them. They give me an impression of having very much more intelligence than I had credited even them with. They appear to be alone in the House in thoroughly understanding these wonderful documents which appear from time to time with interesting legal verbiage and wonderful definitions of the things of which we never knew until this Government came along with its Orders in regard to such things as bacon. This is a masterpiece document, of very great use. I am sure that the agricultural Members must be interested to know what is bacon and what is ham, and from what animal bacon is manufactured. All these things are contained in the document, and yet there is not a word of thanks to the Minister from hon. Members opposite for the information that is supplied.
  Sir JOSEPH LAMB: He has not asked for it.
  Mr. GRENFELL: I am glad that hon. Members opposite, at last, share in the pleasure that I feel in having this wonderful information. It is very important that we should know what the Order means. It does not mean half that is printed in the document. The meaning can be put in a few simple words. It prohibits, under the Bill from which it is drawn, the importation of bacon except under certain conditions. The Government were given authority to regulate the importation of foreign bacon and other foreign food products; but there is not a word about regulation in the Order, although it very definitely lays down conditions under which bacon from foreign countries is to be prohibited from entering this country. The first prohibition says:
  "It shall not be lawful to import into the United Kingdom any bacon produced in any foreign country being the product of pigs bred in another foreign country."
  That may be simple, but I do not know, without a map of Europe or a map of the world in front of me, what it exactly means. The bacon may come from Holland. That is foreign bacon, and it is not illegal foreign bacon. It it not illegal to import foreign bacon coming from Holland, unless that foreign bacon manufactured in Holland has been manu-
  2010
  factured from a pig born and bred in, say, Germany. There is a term in common use the meaning of which I now know for the first time. I assume that in future any Dutch bacon that is not made from a pig born and bred in Holland will become double Dutch. Bacon is doubly foreign if it is made from a pig born and bred in another foreign country.
  All this wonderful instruction is being given to us, but behind the mysteries of this involved formula there is an attempt to prohibit the importation of foreign bacon. It means that no bacon produced under these conditions is to be allowed to come into this country, whatever the state of the market or whatever the price of bacon may be here. It will be illegal to allow bacon produced under those conditions to come into this country. This is the first time that we have been treated to such a prohibition. We fear very much the possibilities that may arise from this course of action. Orders of this kind mean interference with our food supply, and they betoken something of which we are afraid. Paragraph 2 says:
  "It shall not be lawful to import into the United Kingdom except under licence any bacon produced in any foreign country named in the Schedule to this Order or in any foreign country in respect of which a declaration made by the Board of Trade under paragraph 3 of this Order has come into force."
  "It shall not be lawful to import." How far we have gone from the Free Trade profession of the Parliamentary Secretary and his chief. It is no longer a case of, "it is not convenient," but it is no longer lawful to import certain commodities into this country if they do not meet with the approval of the hon. Members who sit in magnificent silence on the benches opposite, while this work is being done on their behalf. There is eloquent dumbness on the part of hon. Members who sit behind the Government, while their interests are being so well served, and while the interests of the consuming public are being so neglected and prejudiced.
  Those are two of the provisions with regard to imports of foodstuffs into this country, and the House would do well to mark the introduction of these proposals. We consume very large quantities of bacon in this country. It is a very important part of our daily diet. The aggregate quantity of bacon imported

  2011
  into the country in 1931 was 13,000,000 cwts. There was to be a regulation to 80 per cent. of that aggregate quantity, the intention being to limit the annual imports to about 10,500,000 cwts. A certain number of agreements were made with the intention of regulating the quantities of bacon to be imported from abroad, and there are 11 countries named in the Schedule from which bacon can be imported by agreement, the quantities being known in advance and licences being issued to the exporters in those countries. All the bacon imported from those countries named in the Schedule comes in under licence.
  So long as the bacon comes in under licence it is legal and it will be legal under this Order, but the hon. Member says that if any country with whom we have not an agreement sends bacon into this country in excess of 400 cwts. a week, or in excess of 20,000 cwts. per annum, or in excess of 1,000 tons per annum, it shall be no longer legal, and the authority of the law is to be used to prohibit further imports from such a country. It is now only legal, except to a very limited extent, for bacon to come into this country from the 11 countries named in the Schedule, with whom we have more or less definite agreements regarding quantities. This goes a very long way further than any of us anticipated when, 12 months ago, we discussed the Marketing Bill under which this Order has been framed. The average consumption per man, woman and child in this country runs to half a pound of bacon per week. The average adult in a family consumes about 1 lb. of bacon per week and the other members of the family will consume a smaller quantity. When we remember that the price of bacon has gone up in the last 12 months from 50s. per cwt. to 85s. and 90s. per cwt., or an increase of 6d. per lb. retail, it is a serious matter. Many people cannot buy 1 lb. of bacon at a time. There are large numbers of people who buy bacon by the quarter and half pound. When the subdivision has been made it will be found that the increase in price averages about 2d. per quarter pound. That is a very serious thing.
  The Parliamentary Secretary and those responsible with him for the introduction of these Orders for the regulation and now for the prohibition of imports of
  2012
  this food commodity ought to keep a very close and vigilant watch on this question and ought to take the House into their confidence. We have not been given their full confidence to-night. We excuse the Minister from giving us the whole of the figures of importation from the several countries, but we do say that from time to time those of us who disagree with these Orders are entitled to the fullest information; and those at whose instigation these Orders have been produced have also the right to know whether their remedy is as efficacious as they desire it to be. Because we are not satisfied that these Orders are designed in the public interest in the fullest sense, we enter our protest here to-night, but we shall refrain from going into the Division Lobby. We simply desire the Minister to take note of what we have said in making our protest.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: We all appreciate the ingenuity and fair-mindedness of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), and those of us who sit on these benches would feel very sorry indeed if his rest in the night season were disturbed by any sort of idea that we were not grateful to the Minister for having attempted, by this Order, to stop up a hole in the previous Order which has been made. I rise simply for the purpose of thanking the Minister on behalf of the pig producers and the bacon producers in the West of England, in order that the hon. Member may go to his night's rest undisturbed by any qualms. I should like to add one other word on behalf of the consumers in the West of England, who realise that their best hope for security and for the promotion of trade in the West Country is that the farming industry should be in a prosperous condition.
  Resolved,
  "That the Bacon (Import Regulation) Order, 1934, dated the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Board of Trade under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, a copy of which was presented to this House on the ninth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1933.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Southby.]
    Mr. REMER: There was a matter which I "had given notice that I would
    2014
    raise on the Motion for Adjournment, but I do not propose to raise it to-night.
    Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes after Ten o'Clock.